Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:06:32


Post by: SeanDavid1991


Good ol nostalgia thread. Post things you miss about the hobby from the good ol days.

Not necessarily things that you;d want to come back, just things that were fun at the time. Although if you want them to come back thats okay too.

For me it's the following:

I miss that the player themselves had to scream Waaaagh! to benefit from the Waaaaaagh on table top.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:14:08


Post by: Overread


When you could carry a whole army in a small case and there was room for spares/variety/multiple lists.

Not that I don't love the new big things, but darn it some armies are so full of big models now that it actually becomes a challenge finding a case that will fit everything comfortably;especially if you want to take a varied number of models so that you have some adaptability depending on your mood/who you end up playing.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:17:04


Post by: mrFickle


I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:18:09


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Setting a 5" blast over a tower of space marines and watching them evaporate.

When tanks were basically proof against most firepower, and a Lascannon merely inconvenienced them.

My Vanquishers versus my friend's Hammerheads in tank duels.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:32:39


Post by: Yarium


I miss Tank Shock. I don't want it to come back, but I definitely do have nostalgic feelings for it.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:47:03


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Yarium wrote:
I miss Tank Shock. I don't want it to come back, but I definitely do have nostalgic feelings for it.


I remember one time I tank shocked a unit of Necron Warriors all the way across the board with a weapon destroyed Leman Russ to win the game one time. They just failed leadership, and never managed to escape the tank even though the tank was really slow. Slowest chase ever.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:51:54


Post by: Grimskul


I miss the days when mech and biker lists were still a thing, definitely beats pushing a huge infantry horde all the time as Orks.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:52:22


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


Righteous Zeal. Go on, shoot my blob of angry chainsaw-fanatics. Please; proceed.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:53:31


Post by: MegaDave


I miss deepstriking in the middle of the enemies army with the chance to destroy your unit. Opened up the board more. No guts, no glory!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 15:58:26


Post by: AnomanderRake


Fire arcs. I miss having to aim your models at the things you wanted to shoot, being able to force aircraft to overshoot, and having some reward for getting behind a tank.

Scatter dice. You may say "but it makes things take longer to resolve!" but I don't think measuring a 9" circle from everything when you want to Deep Strike or needing to roll random shots-to hit-to hit rerolls-to wound-to wound rerolls-saves-FNP on every attack has made anything faster, just blander.

The days before volume-of-AT, where you could kill a tank with one big shot but could only have a chance of stunlocking it by spamming autocannons.

Difficult terrain. I miss having to maneuver instead of just moving straight towards wherever you want to go.

4e Warlocks/3e Grey Knights. I miss the days when "psychic" could just be a lore description and didn't have to mean "this thing is literally a full-power psyker that has the same kind of powers Librarians/Farseers/Sorcerers/etc. do".

4e Chapter Tactics. I miss being able to make your army do something instead of defining everything you do in terms of GW's armies.

Sweeping Advance. I miss not having to grind through every single model on the table with attacks to get rid of them.

One-detachment-per-army. I miss having to take a sane distribution of units instead of just spamming whatever the most efficient choice is.

Explicitly permission-use named characters. I miss needing to use your own characters instead of having the same named characters in every army.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:00:07


Post by: Sim-Life


Bloodthirsters having a 10 for nearly every stat.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:02:23


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I miss the days when 40k had lower lethality, so having an ongoing army narrative across games was possible.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:04:27


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Fire arcs. I miss having to aim your models at the things you wanted to shoot, being able to force aircraft to overshoot, and having some reward for getting behind a tank.

Scatter dice. You may say "but it makes things take longer to resolve!" but I don't think measuring a 9" circle from everything when you want to Deep Strike or needing to roll random shots-to hit-to hit rerolls-to wound-to wound rerolls-saves-FNP on every attack has made anything faster, just blander.


It's not so much slow as it was argument inducing. I'd bring a pair of yardsticks with me so that I could place one over the die and one over the model to show that they were in fact parallel, because people were claiming to be up to like 30 or 45 degrees difference between where the dice was and where my templates were going.

I do miss the templates though, because it was fun to put out the disk and have everything under it just die.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:04:47


Post by: Gnarlly


The original Ork Shokk Attack gun with bases of snotlings for ammunition.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:07:05


Post by: Dudeface


Call me odd, but the good old force org chart. Things are too cheap points wise etc now but only having the 1 chart to fill and having to make the cuts/decisions on which units you took felt like your list building was more involved.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:11:24


Post by: pm713


My very early beginner games where the cheesiest thing was a small unit of Death Company.

That and scattering blasts. You don't know fun until you watch an enemies turret scatter precisely to wipe out one of their squads.


I miss the days.... @ 0004/03/11 16:12:05


Post by: vipoid


I miss the days when a new codex would have more content than the previous one.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:14:04


Post by: Stevefamine


I miss blast templates


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:18:03


Post by: Stormonu


Sustained fire dice. It was great fun pushing your luck with assault cannons, seeing how much you could kill before the gun inevitably jammed on you.

The general naïveté I had about GW’s bad rules before the days of the internet.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:18:04


Post by: RobS


The hinged Thudd Gun blast template

Wolf Guard with Assault Cannons AND Cyclone Missile Launchers


I miss the days.... @ 0007/07/11 16:18:57


Post by: Overread


Dudeface wrote:
Call me odd, but the good old force org chart. Things are too cheap points wise etc now but only having the 1 chart to fill and having to make the cuts/decisions on which units you took felt like your list building was more involved.


I liked it, but at the same time it also needed a rework to account for the growth of army size and reducing points. It did leave the door open for some really powerful things that you couldn't spam and GW has sort of brought back a bit of an element of it with the optional "no more than 3" rule that's become pretty popular to stop spam. I think the concept of it is still very valid if chosen to be included in the game again.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:20:32


Post by: the_scotsman


I miss templates and facing, and I miss LOS caring about intervening terrain and model.

Positioning on the board matters so little in 8th and the minor arguments over positioning that would occasionally occur were well worth the depth of decision making added by those rules.

A game with the loadout and unit depth and breadth as vast as 40k functions better as a simulation-style wargame than as a balanced tournament-style wargame with standardized mission setups and army sizes and whatnot. Just my own personal opinion on the matter.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:22:00


Post by: timetowaste85


I miss 5th edition. My daemons were king if you worked for it. Then 7th came and any jackass could play them. And now 8th is just massive rules bloat. Sigh. RIP, 5th...


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:24:48


Post by: RobS


I also miss the original Necromunda clip-together terrain.
We used it a lot for 40k too after it was released and I was a FOOL to get rid of mine. A FOOL.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:25:48


Post by: Kroem


I miss the days that playing Warhammer meant pushing the models around on the carpet making gun noises! We used to laugh at the idea of one side standing still whilst they were being killed just because it wasn't their turn.

It's weird because there were no rules apart from 'be reasonable', but we still had many a hard fought battle!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:34:00


Post by: SeanDavid1991


All these are making me proper nostalgic.

I have to admit, I do miss the anticipation and nervousness of risky deepstrikes with scatter dice. Are my guys gunna just out of this flyer straight into a wall, or will they make it? who knows?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:34:08


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Kroem wrote:
I miss the days that playing Warhammer meant pushing the models around on the carpet making gun noises! We used to laugh at the idea of one side standing still whilst they were being killed just because it wasn't their turn.

It's weird because there were no rules apart from 'be reasonable', but we still had many a hard fought battle!


I still make tank noises when moving my stuff around!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:38:39


Post by: SeanDavid1991


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
I miss the days that playing Warhammer meant pushing the models around on the carpet making gun noises! We used to laugh at the idea of one side standing still whilst they were being killed just because it wasn't their turn.

It's weird because there were no rules apart from 'be reasonable', but we still had many a hard fought battle!


I still make tank noises when moving my stuff around!


we still live action re-inact it when something cool happens.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:39:57


Post by: Overread


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Kroem wrote:
I miss the days that playing Warhammer meant pushing the models around on the carpet making gun noises! We used to laugh at the idea of one side standing still whilst they were being killed just because it wasn't their turn.

It's weird because there were no rules apart from 'be reasonable', but we still had many a hard fought battle!


I still make tank noises when moving my stuff around!


Wait isn't that the whole point of having an army with tanks?!

What do you do if you can't make tank noises?!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:42:22


Post by: the_scotsman


 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
All these are making me proper nostalgic.

I have to admit, I do miss the anticipation and nervousness of risky deepstrikes with scatter dice. Are my guys gunna just out of this flyer straight into a wall, or will they make it? who knows?


My very first game of 40k that I played with my friend saw a unit of stormtroopers with melta guns drop in next to a tank, fire, blow up one of its weapons, then a friendly Leman Russ fired its weapon at the tank, scattered and blew away the stormtroopers.

I started playing 40k instead of Flames of War because 40k felt more chaotic and like more crazy things could happen, which was appealing to me. Also, when I built units I got to decide what each dude was holding instead of buying basically whole army formations with fixed setups at once.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:48:45


Post by: The Newman


I don't want it to come back and I think the FAQ / CA / quick errata approach is much better (in theory anyway), but I do sort of miss only needing one codex and the base rules to play my army and also knowing that if I got a garbage codex I could safely box up that army and ignore it until either a new codex or a new edition dropped.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 16:56:35


Post by: G00fySmiley


definitely miss force org charts being required.

on templates.. i hated them. i wouldn't mind if they had been used to determine which unit was hit by a number of shots, but they nerfed horder armies so much by being able to force one player to remove a ton of points and slowed down games as those players had to intricately space their units to be 2 inches exactly apart in competitive play to avoid being wiped out.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 17:10:49


Post by: Elbows


Everything about this:

Spoiler:


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 17:47:20


Post by: Duskweaver


Kev Adams' wonderfully characterful RT and 2nd edition era Ork models. The 3rd edition redesign by Brian Nelson eventually caused me to drop my Ork army completely. He just sucked all the humour and character out of them for me.

Likewise, RT and 2nd edition's lack of a FOC. I much preferred the list of units (some with 0-N restrictions for balance or more usually for fluff reasons) with % points value limits on characters and support/ally units to any of the various FOC systems we've had from 3rd onwards.

I also miss having some units, vehicles and wargear options be, essentially, a bonus for those willing to put in some work on the modelling side of the hobby and convert or even scratch-build them, rather than the current No Model No Rules malarkey. But nowadays, apparently, expecting people taking part in a model-based hobby to actually try to develop their modelling skills is 'gatekeeping'... (Yes, I have actually been accused of that for suggesting that it's OK for people to have to convert things in order to make use of every option in their codex.)


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 17:52:39


Post by: The Newman


 Duskweaver wrote:
[snip]

Likewise, RT and 2nd edition's lack of a FOC. I much preferred the list of units (some with 0-N restrictions for balance or more usually for fluff reasons) with % points value limits on characters and support/ally units to any of the various FOC systems we've had from 3rd onwards.

[/snip]

That's a thing I could get behind bringing back.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 17:52:42


Post by: ccs


mrFickle wrote:
I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


So.... You're missing the wrong game.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 18:01:02


Post by: The Newman


ccs wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


So.... You're missing the wrong game.

2nd ed used at least d8 and d10 for armor penetration roles. d12 and d4 too iirc.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 18:38:12


Post by: Arcanis161


Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.

The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.

One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.

I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 19:06:28


Post by: the_scotsman


Arcanis161 wrote:
Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.

The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.

One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.

I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.


I mean, theoretically sure. But in older editions vehicles worked a lot more like they do in practical war - shots were much more likely to just bounce off, but those that got through have the chance of causing catastrophic failure in just a single shot.

Which leads to situations that are much more spectacular, but also much more frustrating as your highly expensive vehicle can just go kapow with sufficiently lucky rolling.

For every game where you get a cool, cinematic sequence of a vehicle getting a secondary weapon blown off, a track thrown, then the crew shaken by lower-strength fire, and then finally an anti-tank weapon delivering the killing shot and blowing it up, you get a game where one side's lascannons all roll "Shaken" results and one side's single shot rolls "Explode" right off the bat.

I run a lot of custom missions, and one of the ones I've tried in 8th was a titanfight mission, where everyone had a single super-heavy unit under their control. I introduced a system called "Consequences" where players could choose to mitigate damage by taking various consequences like weapon destroyed, mobility impaired, armor blown off, etc. If the defender chose to mitigate damage by taking consequences, the attacker could choose from the list what happened. It worked alright, I'm sure given more time to analyze the lists of consequences people would be able to power game them, but putting the consequences sort of semi in both players' hands led to it feeling fairly reasonable and felt like a decision point.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 19:40:14


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


the_scotsman wrote:
Arcanis161 wrote:
Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.

The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.

One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.

I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.


I mean, theoretically sure. But in older editions vehicles worked a lot more like they do in practical war - shots were much more likely to just bounce off, but those that got through have the chance of causing catastrophic failure in just a single shot.

Which leads to situations that are much more spectacular, but also much more frustrating as your highly expensive vehicle can just go kapow with sufficiently lucky rolling.

For every game where you get a cool, cinematic sequence of a vehicle getting a secondary weapon blown off, a track thrown, then the crew shaken by lower-strength fire, and then finally an anti-tank weapon delivering the killing shot and blowing it up, you get a game where one side's lascannons all roll "Shaken" results and one side's single shot rolls "Explode" right off the bat.

I run a lot of custom missions, and one of the ones I've tried in 8th was a titanfight mission, where everyone had a single super-heavy unit under their control. I introduced a system called "Consequences" where players could choose to mitigate damage by taking various consequences like weapon destroyed, mobility impaired, armor blown off, etc. If the defender chose to mitigate damage by taking consequences, the attacker could choose from the list what happened. It worked alright, I'm sure given more time to analyze the lists of consequences people would be able to power game them, but putting the consequences sort of semi in both players' hands led to it feeling fairly reasonable and felt like a decision point.


I prefer the old system of armor penetration. That's basically how tanks die, they're invulnerable to everything lesser until something big enough makes a hole in them and kills the crew, blows it up, or starts a fire and it's abandoned.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 19:54:14


Post by: Insectum7


Blast and Flamer templates.

LOS blocking Area Terrain.

The days when a single shot with a Heavy Weapon had a non-zero chance of blowing up a vehicle outright.

Tactical Squad 370 points, Land Raider 220 points.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:15:51


Post by: Giantwalkingchair


I miss vehicle facings and firing arcs. Also miss morale, it was satisfying to see an opponents unit run away.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:27:38


Post by: The Newman


Oooh, the old Overwatch system. Instead of just always getting to make the hit-on-six roll you had to forgo shooting on your turn to put the unit into Overwatch instead, and then you got to fire at a -1 to-hit in your opponent's turn when a unit moved if you had LoS during it's movement. That made for some interesting tactical decisions.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:31:23


Post by: Polonius


I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:36:39


Post by: vipoid


I'm on the fence with regard to templates.

On the one hand, I think it's fun to actually put them down (once everyone's finished arguing about the scatter dice as a result of parallax errors) and replacing them with d3s and d6s is just ugly design.

On the other hand, when you're using an army with a lot of infantry, it saves a lot of time when you can deploy and move them without trying to make sure that every man is at least 2" away from every other man.

What's more, especially in 6th/7th, Blast Weapons started to become increasingly ludicrous. Large Blasts seemed to proliferate, and we even started to see Apocalypse Blasts appearing on the table. Not only that, but we also saw the introduction of Torrent Flamers - Flamer Templates that lacked any of the normal restrictions and which usually boasted considerably better Strength and AP than even Heavy Flamers.

I recall trying an infantry-IG army in 7th, consisting primarily of 4 large Platoons. On turn 1, a pair of Dreadknights basically deleted a platoon each, with a combination of Large Blasts and Torrent Flamers. That was near enough half my army killed by just two models which weren't even particularly expensive.

In the end, I think the biggest issue with templates was simply GW doing what they always end up doing and simply taking them too far.


 Polonius wrote:
I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.


I have to agree with this.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:47:03


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Polonius wrote:
I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.


I like that Leman Russes are now common and main-line. It makes the game feel more battle-like, and not like an infantry skirmish.

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:47:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I miss when I could freely order from the UK.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 22:53:29


Post by: blood reaper


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
When tanks were basically proof against most firepower, and a Lascannon merely inconvenienced them..


I remember in Fifth edition an acquaintance of mine often brought 3 or 4, sometimes even 5 Leman Russ tanks and other armoured vehicles as part of his Imperial Guard list. Being that 40k rarely has all the options in the box, my one unit of Havocs with it's single Lascannon and Missile Launcher usually glanced one before being unceremoniously removed. I don't think I ever won a game in those days. I can say for sure, I do not miss those days.

What I did miss was what happened when Sixth came around. All my Daemon Princes and my Bloodthirster became substantially harder for him to kill, and what I do miss was watching his gak eating grin disappear when he realised Circus trumps Tank column. What was even better was the subsequent whining about a 'broken list' to which observers would reply "Well, you got what you deserved."


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 23:38:45


Post by: Mournssquats


When I could field
my squat exo armor biker
3 multimelta trikes
20 bikers
With a fire base of a boatload of heavy weapons

Granted the bikes were the only mobile portion

Stupid 3" move


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 23:51:26


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 blood reaper wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
When tanks were basically proof against most firepower, and a Lascannon merely inconvenienced them..


I remember in Fifth edition an acquaintance of mine often brought 3 or 4, sometimes even 5 Leman Russ tanks and other armoured vehicles as part of his Imperial Guard list. Being that 40k rarely has all the options in the box, my one unit of Havocs with it's single Lascannon and Missile Launcher usually glanced one before being unceremoniously removed. I don't think I ever won a game in those days. I can say for sure, I do not miss those days.

What I did miss was what happened when Sixth came around. All my Daemon Princes and my Bloodthirster became substantially harder for him to kill, and what I do miss was watching his gak eating grin disappear when he realised Circus trumps Tank column. What was even better was the subsequent whining about a 'broken list' to which observers would reply "Well, you got what you deserved."


That's because your only AT weapon was a single lascannon. Meltaguns & Vanquishers & Railcannons were where it's at if you're not going to flank the tanks.

Removing tanks was very easy with a real tank gun. Those were the best days.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 23:52:45


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.

It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/11 23:57:53


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.

It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!


I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 00:12:58


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.

It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!


I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.


I have a hard time thinking of a Land Raider as not-a-real-tank. I would observe that my start in 40K is in an edition where one-shotting a tank with an infantry-portable weapon was not uncommon.

I see the deployment of the Lascannons on Marine tanks to be more of a logistical item. Less of an ammunition load so they can advance farther, faster and more independently while still keeping excellent anti-materiel firepower.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:09:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


'Member Datafax cards?
'Member when Chaos Marks actually did something?
'Member when there were less Mexicans?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:12:41


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Member Datafax cards?
'Member when Chaos Marks actually did something?
'Member when there were less Mexicans?


First two, yes.

The third. . . Wut?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:16:55


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Member Datafax cards?
'Member when Chaos Marks actually did something?
'Member when there were less Mexicans?


First two, yes.

The third. . . Wut?


He's doing a bit from South Park - "'memberberries". They make you remember stuff - the good old days. And then remember racist stuff from then, too.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:17:12


Post by: Karol


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
'Member Datafax cards?
'Member when Chaos Marks actually did something?
'Member when there were less Mexicans?


I wonder if a mexican in australia is the same thing as they are here. Otherwise this doesn't seem to make much sense.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:22:56


Post by: H.B.M.C.


It's a "Member Berry" reference from South Park.

They start off with a bunch of things that Randy misses, and throw in the Mexicans line at the end, to which he suddenly comes out of his stupor and says "Wait, what?".


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:39:53


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a "Member Berry" reference from South Park.

They start off with a bunch of things that Randy misses, and throw in the Mexicans line at the end, to which he suddenly comes out of his stupor and says "Wait, what?".

Ahh. . . I never saw too much of South Park. Great show though.

That said, maybe not the greatest thing to post



I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:52:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Nah I've explained it now. Jokes are always better when you explain them.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 01:56:51


Post by: Murrax9


People are going to hate me for this. But I actually miss the blast templates. I thought it made things cinematic and cool. It took up a lot of time, but it was cool. I also really miss how summoning was free and how even Space Marines could summon demons. That was cool.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 02:04:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Murrax9 wrote:
People are going to hate me for this. But I actually miss the blast templates. I thought it made things cinematic and cool.
I'm always torn on this one.

On one hand, blast markers and especially the flamer template were very cool. Nothing was more satisfying than laying down a flamer template and counting up how many unfortunate souls were about to be toasted to a crisp. And the Apoc blast markers were loads of fun. But, I don't miss the anal retentive folks who would spend a month every movement phase measuring out and placing all their minis 2" apart to make blast markers worthless. I am fortunate to have only encountered that a few times, but it was enough to make me think that a lack of blast markers was actually a good thing.

I also don't miss scattering every template. Jesus H. Christ what a waste of time...

By the same token, I think the newer system for blast weapons is fine in theory (as always, GW's concepts are wonderful; the execution of said concepts always leaves a lot to be desired), but the way they've implemented it makes these types of weapons far too swingy. If a flamer was D3+3, a Demolisher Cannon 2D3+2, Venom Cannons D3+1, and so on, then I think we'd have a nice middle ground between the two.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 02:32:48


Post by: Vaktathi


I miss the scale of older editions, when a character like Guilliman or Mortarion were just not within game's intended scale, and a the game was generally much more focused on units of W1 infantry interacting and terrain being relevant beyond just a cover save. While I don't really miss templates at all, I miss the scale where they worked. I miss there being risk in stuff like Deep Strike, terrain, etc.

The old FOC is definitely something I miss, in keeping with that smaller game scale.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the larger scale in its own way, my last tournament I ran an IG superheavy company, but at that point it's basically Apocalypse-lite, and the game rules should reflect that instead of trying to keep the fiddly bits of detail from the smaller scale while abandoning the actual things that defined that scale (e.g. differentiating between power weapon blade types, nobody needs to care if the champion has an axe or a sword in the middle of a tank battle)

I miss faction bonuses being characterful but not necessarily stupendously powerful in direct combat (e.g. instead of giving dice bonuses, modifiers, powerful stratagems, etc, they might give expanded access to FoC slots)

With respect to specific armies, I miss the functionality of my early 5E Iron Warriors. 4 10man squads of CSM's in Rhinos with icons, a couple flying Daemon Princes, 3 units of two Oblits, and two 6-man squads of combi-weapon equipped Terminators. Turn 1, rhinos and DP's rush forward, turns 2 and 3 have reserves come in on the Icons so they arrive without scatter and then proceed to blow up enemy vehicles or MC's, then infantry pile out of Rhinos to engage disembarked enemies and mop up. A little reliant on good luck for reserves, but was a fun and generally balanced list that had some real tactical depth to it (beyond "bring the biggest gun/most unkillable thing") and worked well enough to win a bunch of local tournaments for a couple of years. There were a lot of problems with the 4E CSM codex that was used through 5E, but I managed to make that particular list work really well.

There's a lot I don't miss, previous editions had a lot of garbage mechanics (and GW never got vehicles functioning right as an entirely distinct unit type with the AV system) that the game is far better without, but I do miss the older sense of scale.

EDIT: Also, the art and visuals. Far too much 40k stuff today looks like it came out of Blizzard's or Riot's visual studios. I miss the older cyberpunky/Heavy Metal/Blanche looks, mini's designs, and artwork.



I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 03:27:49


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.

It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!


I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.


I have a hard time thinking of a Land Raider as not-a-real-tank. I would observe that my start in 40K is in an edition where one-shotting a tank with an infantry-portable weapon was not uncommon.

I see the deployment of the Lascannons on Marine tanks to be more of a logistical item. Less of an ammunition load so they can advance farther, faster and more independently while still keeping excellent anti-materiel firepower.


I think of a Predator as like the M113 armored cavalry vehicle thing that has a autocannon on top of an APC, because uh, that's what it is and what it looks like. It's not like legit tank like a Centurion or M60, and doesn't have a legit antitank gun. The lascannon option would be like equipping one with recoilless rifles, which can be effective against tanks, but aren't really a full substitute for a full tank gun on a tank.

The Land Raider doesn't have a powerful gun because it's a heavy transport with guns mounted in sponsons on the side for support.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 03:52:57


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.

I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.


100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.

It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!


I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.


I have a hard time thinking of a Land Raider as not-a-real-tank. I would observe that my start in 40K is in an edition where one-shotting a tank with an infantry-portable weapon was not uncommon.

I see the deployment of the Lascannons on Marine tanks to be more of a logistical item. Less of an ammunition load so they can advance farther, faster and more independently while still keeping excellent anti-materiel firepower.


I think of a Predator as like the M113 armored cavalry vehicle thing that has a autocannon on top of an APC, because uh, that's what it is and what it looks like. It's not like legit tank like a Centurion or M60, and doesn't have a legit antitank gun. The lascannon option would be like equipping one with recoilless rifles, which can be effective against tanks, but aren't really a full substitute for a full tank gun on a tank.

The Land Raider doesn't have a powerful gun because it's a heavy transport with guns mounted in sponsons on the side for support.


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 04:00:48


Post by: AegisGrimm


I miss 2nd edition. It was fun (even the melee phase) as long as you kept forces to a moderate size, and it was also the game that was out when I first got into the hobby. It has it's quirks, but nothing a fun opponent couldn't overcome. The core mechanics also gave us Necromunda and Gorkamorka! Everyone loves to hate the melee phase, but especially for small games like Necromunda, it worked pretty well.

Anyone remember when a mid-sized force was two squads (which might have only had 5 men each), a vehicle, maybe a squad of bikes/jump troops, and a character or two?

My friends and I even used to blend Necromunda with 40K and have tiny skirmish games of 40K where everyone moved individually and each side might have just 6-10 fighters, much like the Armageddon-pre Kill Team game.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 04:07:28


Post by: Insectum7


^I've played a few 1000 point games of 2nd recently, and for Marines it's about 17 guys and one Dreadnought for an army. Squad of 10, squad of 5, Captain and Techmarine.

Way fewer if I cheese out a level 4 psyker, cuz he'll be like 300 odd points.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 04:45:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


And Marine power armour was just as useless in 2nd as it is today!

Necromunda is 2nd Ed perfected. That's where 2nd's 1-on-1 HTH rules came into their own.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 04:46:26


Post by: Argive


Great thread

I miss the times when I was learning the rules for 40k with a friend and we were trying to rmemeber what the guy in the shop taught us as we were pushing around some mish mash figures around the carpet.

I still remember how we decided that BS would be used in the fight phase, because "they go ballistic..." and we'd laugh like hell role playing this.. Good ol times.

I also miss templates, scatter, vehicle facing and all that random bonkers stuff.

But most of all, I miss those crappy plastic trees you go in that that (3E?) DE starter set with the dark templars on the cover..


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 04:51:42


Post by: AegisGrimm


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And Marine power armour was just as useless in 2nd as it is today!

Necromunda is 2nd Ed perfected. That's where 2nd's 1-on-1 HTH rules came into their own.


Power armor was fine, it's just that every weapon hitting the battlefield had at least a -1 save, lol. Still better than Rogue Trader and Marines' power armor originally being a 4+ save!

Agree wholehartedly about melee and Necromunda, though.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 06:39:14


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 07:54:48


Post by: Reavsie


I miss the days when the mini's and the paints had sensible names that actually meant something.

At least the paint names are not overly childish, unlike what they did to Death Guard.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 08:03:06


Post by: AngryAngel80


I miss a ton, too much to list. I miss everything I think from when I started. The games felt more important, the flow was more fun and even the bad things just lead to some real laughs.

Everything feels more clinical, aside from the names used for units which sound like someone tripping out made them.

Hell, I love my space wolves and even I can't stand the names being so over the top, took me years before i could stomach saying Murderfang with a straight face. I still think its one of the dumbest names I've ever heard.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 08:15:25


Post by: Amishprn86


Old FoC
5th DE
Corsairs


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 08:40:15


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I miss a ton, too much to list. I miss everything I think from when I started. The games felt more important, the flow was more fun and even the bad things just lead to some real laughs.

Everything feels more clinical, aside from the names used for units which sound like someone tripping out made them.

Hell, I love my space wolves and even I can't stand the names being so over the top, took me years before i could stomach saying Murderfang with a straight face. I still think its one of the dumbest names I've ever heard.


s What's not to love about murdermurder the murdernaut with murderclaws and murderlust? \s murdermurdermurdermurderwolfwolfwolfwolfwolf


That said, I don't think a lot of the old names are really a whole lot less stupid. I mean "Devastator Squad", "Dominion Squad", and like all the aspect warrior names? There's more of them now, but like there were still a good share of silly names back in the day. And to some degree the names are nice, because "Heavy Weapons Squad" wouldn't be as exciting as "Devastator Squad".


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 08:51:10


Post by: Dai


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
I miss a ton, too much to list. I miss everything I think from when I started. The games felt more important, the flow was more fun and even the bad things just lead to some real laughs.

Everything feels more clinical, aside from the names used for units which sound like someone tripping out made them.

Hell, I love my space wolves and even I can't stand the names being so over the top, took me years before i could stomach saying Murderfang with a straight face. I still think its one of the dumbest names I've ever heard.


s What's not to love about murdermurder the murdernaut with murderclaws and murderlust? \s murdermurdermurdermurderwolfwolfwolfwolfwolf


That said, I don't think a lot of the old names are really a whole lot less stupid. I mean "Devastator Squad", "Dominion Squad", and like all the aspect warrior names? There's more of them now, but like there were still a good share of silly names back in the day. And to some degree the names are nice, because "Heavy Weapons Squad" wouldn't be as exciting as "Devastator Squad".


Look at the Greater Daemon names (or just Daemon names generally) and they are some of the oldest ideas out there!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 09:41:18


Post by: SeanDavid1991


Dai wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
I miss a ton, too much to list. I miss everything I think from when I started. The games felt more important, the flow was more fun and even the bad things just lead to some real laughs.

Everything feels more clinical, aside from the names used for units which sound like someone tripping out made them.

Hell, I love my space wolves and even I can't stand the names being so over the top, took me years before i could stomach saying Murderfang with a straight face. I still think its one of the dumbest names I've ever heard.


s What's not to love about murdermurder the murdernaut with murderclaws and murderlust? \s murdermurdermurdermurderwolfwolfwolfwolfwolf


That said, I don't think a lot of the old names are really a whole lot less stupid. I mean "Devastator Squad", "Dominion Squad", and like all the aspect warrior names? There's more of them now, but like there were still a good share of silly names back in the day. And to some degree the names are nice, because "Heavy Weapons Squad" wouldn't be as exciting as "Devastator Squad".


Look at the Greater Daemon names (or just Daemon names generally) and they are some of the oldest ideas out there!


I remember Belthazar (i now fantasy) but we had a rule in our shop we could only say his German name. Der Dunkle Meister. The Deamon players hated it.

I do love some of the older names though. I actually think they were cheesier back when.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 10:15:15


Post by: Not Online!!!


I kinda miss the day where we had real campaignbooks not PA.

I also miss the day of one rulesource per army, (sadly GW just handled it wrong, and armies had decade long thirst parts.)

I miss IA 13, prehaps most obviously due to my sigil.

I miss templates and the smaller scale of the matches. Former due to terrain positioning etc actually beeing alot more important and indepth and the latter due to the absurd lethality that we now have. Sizecreep is also an issue.

I miss orkboys BS 4+.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 10:19:50


Post by: RobS


I miss the Hellhound tank. Not only did it use a heavy flamer template but you rolled a dice and moved the template forward across the board that number of inches. Woomph.

I miss the old citadel catalogue with all their weird old minis, where you could ring up the goblins in Nottingham and order individual parts.

I miss the Mark of Khorne giving my terminators a 2+ save on 2D6!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 10:20:39


Post by: AngryAngel80


Oh yes, I miss my codex being all I needed for my army as well. I never thought have all my rules in just one book would feel like a gift. It does though.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 14:12:47


Post by: SeanDavid1991


AngryAngel80 wrote:
Oh yes, I miss my codex being all I needed for my army as well. I never thought have all my rules in just one book would feel like a gift. It does though.


What you mean? As a DA player I only need the codex, CA19, the CA19 points book and the Psychic awakening. Only four books to play the game.

In seriousness I do miss the days where a new codex was like OMG catelog for shiny. Now Codex is cool, let's see what released in a few months when CA20 comes out.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 14:54:11


Post by: G00fySmiley


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Murrax9 wrote:
People are going to hate me for this. But I actually miss the blast templates. I thought it made things cinematic and cool.
I'm always torn on this one.

On one hand, blast markers and especially the flamer template were very cool. Nothing was more satisfying than laying down a flamer template and counting up how many unfortunate souls were about to be toasted to a crisp. And the Apoc blast markers were loads of fun. But, I don't miss the anal retentive folks who would spend a month every movement phase measuring out and placing all their minis 2" apart to make blast markers worthless. I am fortunate to have only encountered that a few times, but it was enough to make me think that a lack of blast markers was actually a good thing.

I also don't miss scattering every template. Jesus H. Christ what a waste of time...

By the same token, I think the newer system for blast weapons is fine in theory (as always, GW's concepts are wonderful; the execution of said concepts always leaves a lot to be desired), but the way they've implemented it makes these types of weapons far too swingy. If a flamer was D3+3, a Demolisher Cannon 2D3+2, Venom Cannons D3+1, and so on, then I think we'd have a nice middle ground between the two.


also imagine the horde army's point of view. when i first got into the game i read a lot of fluff and decided on orks... it was super disappointing and nto fun for me to put my army down and if my opponent brought templates I would just be scoopign up this army that I had painted 180 ork boyz for up by the handful and never would get the satisfaction of reaching combat. a lot of my first games were... put this army that i spent a lot of my money (i was a college student at that time) and effort (all painted) just to spend a few hours where every game my oppnents got the satisfaction of pie plating and small blasting/flaming away my army. sternguard with flamers woudl drop pod in and oen squad could reck my whole army in one turn with 5 flame templates out of an automatically landing where it wanted drop pod.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 17:20:07


Post by: Ratius


I miss metal minis.
Yeah, I went there.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 18:10:53


Post by: mrFickle


The Newman wrote:
ccs wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


So.... You're missing the wrong game.

2nd ed used at least d8 and d10 for armor penetration roles. d12 and d4 too iirc.


I had a 20 year hiatus from 40k not sure if I played 2ed or 3ed but jumped up to 8ed last year. Can’t remember exactly what dice were used but I swear there was a d20 involved. I still have old codexes I may have a look


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 18:15:59


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote:
The Newman wrote:
ccs wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


So.... You're missing the wrong game.

2nd ed used at least d8 and d10 for armor penetration roles. d12 and d4 too iirc.


I had a 20 year hiatus from 40k not sure if I played 2ed or 3ed but jumped up to 8ed last year. Can’t remember exactly what dice were used but I swear there was a d20 involved. I still have old codexes I may have a look


A Powerfist was 8+D6+D20 for Armor penetration
Chainfist was 10+D4+D6+D20
A Multimelta was 8+D6+2D12, plus a 4" diameter blast marker, which meant it hit multiple locations on a vehicle.
Lascannon 3D6+9
Krak Missile D6+D10+8
Assault Cannon D6+D10+8 for each shot that hit, which was up to 9 if you got real lucky.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 19:49:41


Post by: Bob Lorgar


I miss

- Wargear Cards - when Dante didn't have an Inferno Pistol, he had THE Inferno Pistol. As in one. Singular.
- Singular Chaos Lightning Claws - when lightning claws were exceptionally rare, and exactly one and only one guy in the galaxy had a pair, and that guy was Horus.
- Great Terminators - when terminators were actually worth their points costs, and were the bad-asses you would expect them to be
- Terminator exclusive weapons - where a little marine couldn't even wield a thunder hammer, stormshield, or lightning claw, because his armor didn't have the power supply necessary to make it function
- Pewter miniatures - I'll pass on all this plastic garbage. Give me miniatures that actually weigh something.
- Citadel Miniatures Catalogues - where you could spend hours and hours looking for just the bits for that awesome conversion you wanted to do
- Bits Service - where GW would actually take your money for those bits you wanted to buy from them
- over the shoulder heavy weapons - because heaven forbid someone would ever look like they could hit anything
- there being no airplanes - because really, airplanes at this scale? Are you insane? Half a city block is the size battlefield you need for that nonsense
- displacer fields - because fun


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 20:00:50


Post by: Gitdakka


I miss the hand drawn/painted artwork in the books (and on unit boxes). I also miss the first person stories that were more common in old books. I also miss gw using homemade terrain when they display their miniatures, instead of just plastics.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 20:21:25


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


2nd Ed, for pure nostalgia.

It’s when I started, had a small circle of friends, and massive, ridiculous Sunday battles at my local GW.

Many of those friends are still my friends now, including all three of the GW staffers. And near everyone else in my social circle I know through them and other Nerds.

Unsurprisingly, everything felt fresh and new, because it was. Prices were relative, and every new blister or box was a treat. Eventually wound up with a near unprecedented, Codex compliant company of Dark Angels, plus assorted support. Even got to field the whole bunch on my 18th birthday (cracking game!).

I guess it’s definitely just the ‘new hobby is ace!’ nostalgia, and way before I discovered t’internet.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 20:59:07


Post by: Rippy


I miss the days of Grimdark, everything is bad for everyone, rather than the "Super Marine Avengers Are Here To Win Again" in just about every narrative.
Yes I get that having them as the good guy hero bois probably sells GW more models to kids.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 21:06:39


Post by: JohnnyHell


Blister pack sales. Truly worth the trip to the store!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 21:33:37


Post by: The Power Cosmic


I miss spending hours going through this book:



planning out conversions and actually being able to order the bits to do it.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 21:45:20


Post by: the_scotsman


 Rippy wrote:
I miss the days of Grimdark, everything is bad for everyone, rather than the "Super Marine Avengers Are Here To Win Again" in just about every narrative.
Yes I get that having them as the good guy hero bois probably sells GW more models to kids.


This new arc reminds me the most of how in the first 5 minutes of the new star wars movie theyre all "woah-oh these aint your daddys storm troopers! Theyre the super badass trained from birth ultra elite bad dudes who would never lose a battle to some plucky teddy bears setting home alone traps!"

And then it was right back to star wars having theleast threatening bad guys pretty much in cinematic history minutes later, unable to hit anything or fight anyone in any context.

Thats what the whole setup to 8th ed feels like now. The imperium has never felt safer or more secure in their dominance. Marines have never felt more invincible.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 23:39:26


Post by: Insectum7


^ nailed it.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 23:50:59


Post by: amanita


I miss the old White Dwarf battle reports of 3rd and 4th Ed., when players brought competitive lists while still showcasing the latest models. Players would explain their plan and then discuss what went right or wrong during the game, at a time when actual tactics gave each player greater agency. The last time I read a battle report it was just formulaic dreck that over-dramatized the scenario with little if any input from the players.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/12 23:59:13


Post by: mrFickle





Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrFickle wrote:
The Newman wrote:
ccs wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
I miss all the funny dice, d3 through to d20. I don’t know why but when I was a kid I thought it was cool


So.... You're missing the wrong game.

2nd ed used at least d8 and d10 for armor penetration roles. d12 and d4 too iirc.


I had a 20 year hiatus from 40k not sure if I played 2ed or 3ed but jumped up to 8ed last year. Can’t remember exactly what dice were used but I swear there was a d20 involved. I still have old codexes I may have a look


A Powerfist was 8+D6+D20 for Armor penetration
Chainfist was 10+D4+D6+D20
A Multimelta was 8+D6+2D12, plus a 4" diameter blast marker, which meant it hit multiple locations on a vehicle.
Lascannon 3D6+9
Krak Missile D6+D10+8
Assault Cannon D6+D10+8 for each shot that hit, which was up to 9 if you got real lucky.


I feel vindicated ROFL. Anyway I think there was more tension when a dice role could be between 1 and 20. I’ll tell you what I don’t miss, terminators save was 2+ on 2 d6 I think


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 00:33:15


Post by: Insectum7


Terminators were 3+ on 2D6

Unless they were Khorne for a 2+ on 2D6. Normal Khorne marines had a 2+ on 1d6.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 00:42:07


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.




That's what I miss most. When killing tanks meant getting a big antitank gun that was supposed to make a big hole in armor.


Because tanks don't have multiple-mounted tank guns, usually, and the attempts to mount multiple tank guns were swiftly discontinued because they contributed nothing but reduced working space in the tank. That's not how tanks die. They don't have hit points, they have armor protecting squishy people, explosive munitions, and flammable engines and fuel. To kill a tank you need to have a big gun that can breach the armor so that it can destroy one of those things inside the tank that makes it work. Basically, if the gun in question can penetrate the tank, it will kill it in very swift order. If it can't, it probably won't without a very lucky hit. And I miss the days when that was the case. A big AT gun killed a tank, and little guns were mostly harmless, needed to get lucky, and generally of more value against light targets.

Anyway, this is what I see the Predator as:
Spoiler:


It's basically exactly what the Predator is [it even looks like one and has basically the same loadout!]. The lascannon predator would be taking that thing, and mounting a bunch of recoilless rifles to it like an Ontos. Which technically works through the principle that one of them will hit and get lucky, but isn't as good as a full sized tank gun.



Anyway, I miss the days when tanks were tanks.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 00:58:50


Post by: Zustiur


I miss the days of no flyers, no super heavies, named characters by consent and having to follow the org chart. Back when armies looked more like congruous armies. Back before someone at GW got possessed by a Slaaneshi daemon and introduced all of the excess the game has now.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 02:29:54


Post by: Insectum7



Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.




That's what I miss most. When killing tanks meant getting a big antitank gun that was supposed to make a big hole in armor.


Because tanks don't have multiple-mounted tank guns, usually, and the attempts to mount multiple tank guns were swiftly discontinued because they contributed nothing but reduced working space in the tank. That's not how tanks die. They don't have hit points, they have armor protecting squishy people, explosive munitions, and flammable engines and fuel. To kill a tank you need to have a big gun that can breach the armor so that it can destroy one of those things inside the tank that makes it work. Basically, if the gun in question can penetrate the tank, it will kill it in very swift order. If it can't, it probably won't without a very lucky hit. And I miss the days when that was the case. A big AT gun killed a tank, and little guns were mostly harmless, needed to get lucky, and generally of more value against light targets.

Anyway, this is what I see the Predator as:


It's basically exactly what the Predator is [it even looks like one and has basically the same loadout!]. The lascannon predator would be taking that thing, and mounting a bunch of recoilless rifles to it like an Ontos. Which technically works through the principle that one of them will hit and get lucky, but isn't as good as a full sized tank gun.



Anyway, I miss the days when tanks were tanks.

Lol. The visual similarity of a Predator with that thing is shocking. Although the predator would be way bigger because 40k tanks are huge.

I totally get the desire for a single large AT cannon MBT. I do. I tend to think the twin-las is more or less equivalent. Las in particular because theoretically the beams could just focus on the same point and it really does just act like one larger weapon. I also just love my space lasers and the idea of ammunitionless guns for long deployment and deep penetration. Not to mention a Land Raider blowing away two vehicles at the same time as it barrels towards it's target to unload marines.

I too would prefer tank armor to be more all or nothing. The older damage effect paradigm was superior, and I dont like lasguns hurting my Land Raiders.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 03:47:15


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.




That's what I miss most. When killing tanks meant getting a big antitank gun that was supposed to make a big hole in armor.


Because tanks don't have multiple-mounted tank guns, usually, and the attempts to mount multiple tank guns were swiftly discontinued because they contributed nothing but reduced working space in the tank. That's not how tanks die. They don't have hit points, they have armor protecting squishy people, explosive munitions, and flammable engines and fuel. To kill a tank you need to have a big gun that can breach the armor so that it can destroy one of those things inside the tank that makes it work. Basically, if the gun in question can penetrate the tank, it will kill it in very swift order. If it can't, it probably won't without a very lucky hit. And I miss the days when that was the case. A big AT gun killed a tank, and little guns were mostly harmless, needed to get lucky, and generally of more value against light targets.

Anyway, this is what I see the Predator as:


It's basically exactly what the Predator is [it even looks like one and has basically the same loadout!]. The lascannon predator would be taking that thing, and mounting a bunch of recoilless rifles to it like an Ontos. Which technically works through the principle that one of them will hit and get lucky, but isn't as good as a full sized tank gun.



Anyway, I miss the days when tanks were tanks.

Lol. The visual similarity of a Predator with that thing is shocking. Although the predator would be way bigger because 40k tanks are huge.

I totally get the desire for a single large AT cannon MBT. I do. I tend to think the twin-las is more or less equivalent. Las in particular because theoretically the beams could just focus on the same point and it really does just act like one larger weapon. I also just love my space lasers and the idea of ammunitionless guns for long deployment and deep penetration. Not to mention a Land Raider blowing away two vehicles at the same time as it barrels towards it's target to unload marines.

I too would prefer tank armor to be more all or nothing. The older damage effect paradigm was superior, and I dont like lasguns hurting my Land Raiders.


It is! The M113 Fire Support Vehicle is basically exactly a Predator, which is pretty funny. The turret even has the same shape! It just needs a pair of heavy bolter sponsons, and it'd be complete.

It's probably not a whole lot smaller though. A M113 vehicle is about 5m long, and a Rhino in 1:56 scale [28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56] comes in about 6.5m long. About %20 bigger in each direction, but it also carries people who are about 20% taller and presumably similarly scaled in other directions, so it needs to be a bit bigger to fit the space marines inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
I miss a ton, too much to list. I miss everything I think from when I started. The games felt more important, the flow was more fun and even the bad things just lead to some real laughs.

Everything feels more clinical, aside from the names used for units which sound like someone tripping out made them.

Hell, I love my space wolves and even I can't stand the names being so over the top, took me years before i could stomach saying Murderfang with a straight face. I still think its one of the dumbest names I've ever heard.


s What's not to love about murdermurder the murdernaut with murderclaws and murderlust? \s murdermurdermurdermurderwolfwolfwolfwolfwolf


That said, I don't think a lot of the old names are really a whole lot less stupid. I mean "Devastator Squad", "Dominion Squad", and like all the aspect warrior names? There's more of them now, but like there were still a good share of silly names back in the day. And to some degree the names are nice, because "Heavy Weapons Squad" wouldn't be as exciting as "Devastator Squad".


Look at the Greater Daemon names (or just Daemon names generally) and they are some of the oldest ideas out there!


Daemon names in general are definitely pretty silly.

Bloodcrusher. What? Blood is a liquid, how do you even crush it?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 04:27:11


Post by: Gadzilla666


I see space marines in 40k as fast moving, tactical, special forces type troops. So that means fast fire support and troop carrier type vehicles. Their mbts would come from 30k when they were true armies. Those would be Sicarans and if you want to go really big fellblades.

As for something I miss from older editions: sweeping advance. (Fething 8th edition fall back rules).


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 06:57:39


Post by: John Prins


I miss Kroot having 4+ cover saves in woods, being able to move through woods, and being able to shoot through woods no one else could. Kroot, kings of the forest.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 17:33:52


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.




That's what I miss most. When killing tanks meant getting a big antitank gun that was supposed to make a big hole in armor.


Because tanks don't have multiple-mounted tank guns, usually, and the attempts to mount multiple tank guns were swiftly discontinued because they contributed nothing but reduced working space in the tank. That's not how tanks die. They don't have hit points, they have armor protecting squishy people, explosive munitions, and flammable engines and fuel. To kill a tank you need to have a big gun that can breach the armor so that it can destroy one of those things inside the tank that makes it work. Basically, if the gun in question can penetrate the tank, it will kill it in very swift order. If it can't, it probably won't without a very lucky hit. And I miss the days when that was the case. A big AT gun killed a tank, and little guns were mostly harmless, needed to get lucky, and generally of more value against light targets.

Anyway, this is what I see the Predator as:


It's basically exactly what the Predator is [it even looks like one and has basically the same loadout!]. The lascannon predator would be taking that thing, and mounting a bunch of recoilless rifles to it like an Ontos. Which technically works through the principle that one of them will hit and get lucky, but isn't as good as a full sized tank gun.



Anyway, I miss the days when tanks were tanks.

Lol. The visual similarity of a Predator with that thing is shocking. Although the predator would be way bigger because 40k tanks are huge.

I totally get the desire for a single large AT cannon MBT. I do. I tend to think the twin-las is more or less equivalent. Las in particular because theoretically the beams could just focus on the same point and it really does just act like one larger weapon. I also just love my space lasers and the idea of ammunitionless guns for long deployment and deep penetration. Not to mention a Land Raider blowing away two vehicles at the same time as it barrels towards it's target to unload marines.

I too would prefer tank armor to be more all or nothing. The older damage effect paradigm was superior, and I dont like lasguns hurting my Land Raiders.


It is! The M113 Fire Support Vehicle is basically exactly a Predator, which is pretty funny. The turret even has the same shape! It just needs a pair of heavy bolter sponsons, and it'd be complete.

It's probably not a whole lot smaller though. A M113 vehicle is about 5m long, and a Rhino in 1:56 scale [28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56] comes in about 6.5m long. About %20 bigger in each direction, but it also carries people who are about 20% taller and presumably similarly scaled in other directions, so it needs to be a bit bigger to fit the space marines inside.


Measuring it out based on a 7 ft marine (from 7th ed tactical plastics) I get roughly 1m = 16.4mm, and THAT gets us here:


Just sayin. I get that the scale is fudged a bit for model presence, but even if we shrink the model and go by a 6.5m length (and they're already cramped for 10 marines inside), it's a damn big vehicle. And Land Raiders are huuuuge.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 17:41:04


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:


Whether or not the Lascannon is a powerful gun depends quite a bit on the edition. I don't clearly recall, but I think a Vanquisher Cannon would still be hard pressed to out-perform four Lascannons in most of them.

Although maybe this depends on your idea of a powerful gun.


S8 AP2 Armorbane should outperform S9 AP2 not-armorbane in most editions. A S9 lascannon has a 17% chance of a penetration, a S8 Armorbane Vanquisher has a 59% chance of getting a pen. On the VDT they're the same. It takes about... 4 Lascannons [3.5] to equal a Vanquisher gun's odds.

Which is why the Vanquisher gun is a actual powerful tank gun, and the predator annihilator is comparable to like an ontos with 6 recoilless rifles to get the job done.

I mean, if the effect winds up being the same* anyways I don't see why not to call the thing a "legit tank". I think I often prefer the exotic nature of a bunch of lasers and/or the idiosyncratic format of the Land Raider.

The "exotic-future-weapon" especially extends to the Multimelta, which is man-portable and also hits as hard as the Vanquisher (Melta vs. Armorbane in the 6th-7th ed example). Actually a bit harder because of the AP1. Obviously there's the range difference, but you get that sweet, sweet 1950's heat-ray imagery.


*Unless the Vanquisher has changed since the Index (I only have the IG in index), the four Lascannons currently far, far outshine it.
In the 6th-7th Paradigm four Lascannons I think wind up faring much better against lighter armor, vs. the Vanquisher. You get multiple hits for multiple damage effect rolls. Then again, twin-linking reduces the number of rolls to Pen. Lots of factors involved.




That's what I miss most. When killing tanks meant getting a big antitank gun that was supposed to make a big hole in armor.


Because tanks don't have multiple-mounted tank guns, usually, and the attempts to mount multiple tank guns were swiftly discontinued because they contributed nothing but reduced working space in the tank. That's not how tanks die. They don't have hit points, they have armor protecting squishy people, explosive munitions, and flammable engines and fuel. To kill a tank you need to have a big gun that can breach the armor so that it can destroy one of those things inside the tank that makes it work. Basically, if the gun in question can penetrate the tank, it will kill it in very swift order. If it can't, it probably won't without a very lucky hit. And I miss the days when that was the case. A big AT gun killed a tank, and little guns were mostly harmless, needed to get lucky, and generally of more value against light targets.

Anyway, this is what I see the Predator as:


It's basically exactly what the Predator is [it even looks like one and has basically the same loadout!]. The lascannon predator would be taking that thing, and mounting a bunch of recoilless rifles to it like an Ontos. Which technically works through the principle that one of them will hit and get lucky, but isn't as good as a full sized tank gun.



Anyway, I miss the days when tanks were tanks.

Lol. The visual similarity of a Predator with that thing is shocking. Although the predator would be way bigger because 40k tanks are huge.

I totally get the desire for a single large AT cannon MBT. I do. I tend to think the twin-las is more or less equivalent. Las in particular because theoretically the beams could just focus on the same point and it really does just act like one larger weapon. I also just love my space lasers and the idea of ammunitionless guns for long deployment and deep penetration. Not to mention a Land Raider blowing away two vehicles at the same time as it barrels towards it's target to unload marines.

I too would prefer tank armor to be more all or nothing. The older damage effect paradigm was superior, and I dont like lasguns hurting my Land Raiders.


It is! The M113 Fire Support Vehicle is basically exactly a Predator, which is pretty funny. The turret even has the same shape! It just needs a pair of heavy bolter sponsons, and it'd be complete.

It's probably not a whole lot smaller though. A M113 vehicle is about 5m long, and a Rhino in 1:56 scale [28mm wargaming is approximately 1:56] comes in about 6.5m long. About %20 bigger in each direction, but it also carries people who are about 20% taller and presumably similarly scaled in other directions, so it needs to be a bit bigger to fit the space marines inside.


Measuring it out based on a 7 ft marine (from 7th ed tactical plastics) I get roughly 1m = 16.4mm, and THAT gets us here:


Just sayin. I get that the scale is fudged a bit for model presence, but even if we shrink the model and go by a 6.5m length (and they're already cramped for 10 marines inside), it's a damn big vehicle. And Land Raiders are huuuuge.


Not denying that it's big, but it's scaled up by about the same amount that a person is scaled up to be a Space Marine.

As I said, 28mm Heroic is 1:56 scale miniatures, so a 11.5cm long Rhino [don't have one on me right now, source here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Scale_Model_Kits_for_40K] would be about 6.44m long, which is oversized to an M113 [4.86m long] by a similar scale factor [32%] that a space marine is oversized to a person [7'-7'6"/5'8 ~ 29%] .

I definitely imagine a Space Marine squad could fit inside a Rhino though. If a M113 can somehow fit 11 people in inside plus 2 crewmen, a Rhino can probably fit 10 marines inside it.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 18:25:23


Post by: Insectum7


^The 1:56 scale isn't really consistent though. I measured conservatively for Space Marines and easily wound up with a 7.3m length tank.

For room, people "scrunch" a lot easier than Space Marines in armor. Them shoulder pads sure do get in the way of efficiently sitting side by side. It'd be interesting to 3d model marines (and rhinos) less stylistically exaggerated and see where that got you in terms of fit.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 18:55:36


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
^The 1:56 scale isn't really consistent though. I measured conservatively for Space Marines and easily wound up with a 7.3m length tank.

For room, people "scrunch" a lot easier than Space Marines in armor. Them shoulder pads sure do get in the way of efficiently sitting side by side. It'd be interesting to 3d model marines (and rhinos) less stylistically exaggerated and see where that got you in terms of fit.


It isn't quite consistent, but it's a baseline standard. After all, modern human models like SoS and SoB stand taller than old space marine models, and the oldmarines were basically as tall as a Cadian.

Shoulder Pads might present a problem, since the marines can't really pack in, but assuming you seat people in front of the side doors and have them arranged in three rows in the back of the Rhino, I think they might fit. Definitely not standing, but sitting down at least. It does have comically small seats inside of it. This seems like something to try to model, like how FW made all those strips that allow you to put 50 guys in a Gorgon or 12 in a Valkyrie.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:28:32


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^The 1:56 scale isn't really consistent though. I measured conservatively for Space Marines and easily wound up with a 7.3m length tank.

For room, people "scrunch" a lot easier than Space Marines in armor. Them shoulder pads sure do get in the way of efficiently sitting side by side. It'd be interesting to 3d model marines (and rhinos) less stylistically exaggerated and see where that got you in terms of fit.


It isn't quite consistent, but it's a baseline standard. After all, modern human models like SoS and SoB stand taller than old space marine models, and the oldmarines were basically as tall as a Cadian.


Imo the modern kits aren't really good to go by in this case, since the Rhino and Tactical kit were scaled back in. . . 1998ish? And at that time most human kits were smaller than the Cadian plastics which came out a little later. Metal Sisters, for example.

A good question might be: Which era of GW is actually 1:56?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:32:56


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^The 1:56 scale isn't really consistent though. I measured conservatively for Space Marines and easily wound up with a 7.3m length tank.

For room, people "scrunch" a lot easier than Space Marines in armor. Them shoulder pads sure do get in the way of efficiently sitting side by side. It'd be interesting to 3d model marines (and rhinos) less stylistically exaggerated and see where that got you in terms of fit.


It isn't quite consistent, but it's a baseline standard. After all, modern human models like SoS and SoB stand taller than old space marine models, and the oldmarines were basically as tall as a Cadian.


Imo the modern kits aren't really good to go by in this case, since the Rhino and Tactical kit were scaled back in. . . 1998ish? And at that time most human kits were smaller than the Cadian plastics which came out a little later. Metal Sisters, for example.

A good question might be: Which era of GW is actually 1:56?


I don't actually know. I just know that the official number for 28mm wargaming is 1:56 scale. GW probably doesn't think too hard about scale, and just makes it as big as other kits.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:39:11


Post by: amanita


The guy who designed most of the early GW vehicles said the scale was 1:43, like lots of die cast metal models. Seems about right to me.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:43:25


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 amanita wrote:
The guy who designed most of the early GW vehicles said the scale was 1:43, like lots of die cast metal models. Seems about right to me.


Interesting, that puts the 11.5cm long Rhino at 4.9m, but makes space marines tiny as hell [like 4 ft tall dwarfs]


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:56:51


Post by: MacPhail


The Crusade of the Red Redemption.

I don't miss my blast templates, because I still use them a drink coasters.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 19:57:50


Post by: Insectum7


Right. The Rhino might be scaled big to look impressive, but you still can't squeeze a marine through the hatch. It's all goofy. Which is why putting GW models next to actual scale models looks off.

They look great on the table though, so job well done imo.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/13 23:57:51


Post by: jobalisk


Sixth Edition. Moral that actually worked properly and didn't gave people just vanishing off the board, the 90's in general but more specifically, how GW actually cared (or seemed to care) about its customers, Templates, vehicle facings and vehicle damage that didn't make them ridiculously OP.

But, most of all, more than anything else, the 3rd Edition Deamon hunters codex.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 07:54:35


Post by: Protrudingmanhole


Scatter dice and blast markers so yea the unpredictability. Hero to zero was always a funny thing to have happen


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 08:58:00


Post by: Lammia


Force Weapons outright slaying models...

...

...I think...


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 10:16:41


Post by: Nibbler


I can't remeber witch ed it was, but there was a time, when choosing to play a biel-tan cwe army meant, that I can bring aspect warriors as troops...

It felt right that way.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 10:19:35


Post by: Not Online!!!


Nibbler wrote:
I can't remeber witch ed it was, but there was a time, when choosing to play a biel-tan cwe army meant, that I can bring aspect warriors as troops...

It felt right that way.


There were multiple times like that , were your HQ choice had actual influence on your army composition.

F.E. A nurgle CSM lord allowed you plague marines as troops.

some of the stuff was allbeit preety ridicoulus.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 10:28:29


Post by: Nibbler


Not Online!!! wrote:
Nibbler wrote:
I can't remeber witch ed it was, but there was a time, when choosing to play a biel-tan cwe army meant, that I can bring aspect warriors as troops...

It felt right that way.


There were multiple times like that , were your HQ choice had actual influence on your army composition.

F.E. A nurgle CSM lord allowed you plague marines as troops.

some of the stuff was allbeit preety ridicoulus.


AFAIK, they do something similar in AoS.
When you use certain "cults" / allegiances (not sure about the correct word, but I think you'll get what I mean), you can use certain units can be used as battleline. Maybe we'll see something similar in 40k (again, someday in the distant future)...


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 11:24:42


Post by: Thousandeyes


 Stevefamine wrote:
I miss blast templates


I miss these as well, they did slow things down a bit but did stop people castling up so much.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 11:30:54


Post by: Crispy78


Lammia wrote:
Force Weapons outright slaying models...

...

...I think...


Yeah, I was only ever on the receiving end of that one. No thanks!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 11:31:22


Post by: vipoid


Lammia wrote:
Force Weapons outright slaying models...

...

...I think...


You mean before every character and his dog was given Eternal Warrior?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 11:40:22


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 vipoid wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Force Weapons outright slaying models...

...

...I think...


You mean before every character and his dog was given Eternal Warrior?

Hey, only the Space Marines got that! And relics which gave Eternal Warrior!
If you weren't a Space Marine then your special characters and HQs had little to no access to it.

Worst offender for that kind of thing was the relic storm shield from the space marine codex. Gave eternal warrior and a 3++ invulnerable save. And it cost a similar amount to the Tau Shield Generator battlesuit system which only gave a 4++ save and no eternal warrior.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 14:40:21


Post by: G00fySmiley


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Lammia wrote:
Force Weapons outright slaying models...

...

...I think...


You mean before every character and his dog was given Eternal Warrior?

Hey, only the Space Marines got that! And relics which gave Eternal Warrior!
If you weren't a Space Marine then your special characters and HQs had little to no access to it.

Worst offender for that kind of thing was the relic storm shield from the space marine codex. Gave eternal warrior and a 3++ invulnerable save. And it cost a similar amount to the Tau Shield Generator battlesuit system which only gave a 4++ save and no eternal warrior.


yea... I hated all of the.. well guess all my ork characters other than Ghaz get to be slain by some no name marine psycher. apparently Wazdakka can race his bike and ramp it into the head of a titan and take it down... but put him against a librarian and we have our limit.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 14:44:01


Post by: Vaktathi


The most ironic thing about Force Weapons was that originally they were anti-daemon weapons that daemons got no save against, eventually they turned into armor-save ignoring weapons that inflicted Instant Death...at a time when Daemons generally all had invulnerable saves only and all had Eternal Warrior, making Force Weapons no more effective against daemons than a rifle butt or boot knife


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 15:36:03


Post by: SeanDavid1991


I do not miss old force weapons.

My Azrael, supreme grand master of dark angels and all successors has just been one shot by a single failed wound roll by a grey knight troop choice. :/.....fun.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 15:50:52


Post by: Jidmah


I miss disembarking from open topped vehicles and landraiders after moving


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 16:10:06


Post by: Hellebore


I miss some of but not all of 2nd Ed.


Speed modifiers meant fast units used speed as protection (Eldar and genestealers were at-1 to hit if they ran).

Close combat was clunky but not as lethal as every one remembers. 3rd + saw more unit slaughter from a single character. Although it was technically possible, 2nd Ed in practice saw most characters outclassed by outnumbering that ended in stalemate. After the 3rd or 4th mook, your character was usually losing the contest. Only calgar could slaughter his way through because he ignored the outnumbering bonus.









I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 16:17:29


Post by: A Town Called Malus


I miss the days when my Broadside railguns weren't weaker than the lascannon a space marine can carry on his shoulder, despite being over twice the size. The days when they were terrifying tank killers who could kill a land raider with a single well placed shot, rather than their current status of drowning enemies in missiles.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 16:26:30


Post by: Insectum7


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I miss the days when my Broadside railguns weren't weaker than the lascannon a space marine can carry on his shoulder, despite being over twice the size. The days when they were terrifying tank killers who could kill a land raider with a single well placed shot, rather than their current status of drowning enemies in missiles.


Oh god, right. Theyre S8 now, yeah?


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 16:30:09


Post by: A Town Called Malus


 Insectum7 wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I miss the days when my Broadside railguns weren't weaker than the lascannon a space marine can carry on his shoulder, despite being over twice the size. The days when they were terrifying tank killers who could kill a land raider with a single well placed shot, rather than their current status of drowning enemies in missiles.


Oh god, right. Theyre S8 now, yeah?


Eeyup.

Stupidest change from the 4th to 6th ed codex. I get that barely anyone took Hammerheads with the 4th edition codex (because you could take multiple Broadsides whose guns were just as strong against single targets but were also twin linked and so more accurate for a similar cost as a kitted out Hammerhead) but the answer to that would have been to make the Hammerhead better by making it more accurate and more reliable at penetrating armour (such as making it an Ordnance weapon so it would roll 2D6 and pick highest for armour penetration rolls). Also, the Hammerhead had the submunition round which made it excellent against infantry with a S6 AP4 pie plate. That saved my skin against Necrons several times in 5th/early pre-codex 6th.

Alternatively GW had its new Broadside kits to sell and knew everyone who played already had railsides and so made them crap to shift the new kit for people who now needed missile pods.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 16:40:38


Post by: Insectum7


^Ugh. That's so dumb.

Man, those S10 AP1 Railcannons were effing terrifying back in 3rd and 4th. I guess 5th too, but the vehicle damage chart changed and made them a little tougher.

Speaking of 3rd and 4th. I miss the Monolith of those days. The superheavy before superheavies.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 20:30:29


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


The old broadsides also just looked better. The new ones carrying their guns like rifles just look stupid.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 20:51:12


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The old broadsides also just looked better. The new ones carrying their guns like rifles just look stupid.


I like the newer rail guns personally, but its kind of moot since nobody would bother to take a glorified expensive single profile space marine missile launcher.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 20:54:07


Post by: vipoid


 Vaktathi wrote:
The most ironic thing about Force Weapons was that originally they were anti-daemon weapons that daemons got no save against, eventually they turned into armor-save ignoring weapons that inflicted Instant Death...at a time when Daemons generally all had invulnerable saves only and all had Eternal Warrior, making Force Weapons no more effective against daemons than a rifle butt or boot knife


I remember thinking back in 5e that GKs seemed better equipped to be an anti-Tyranid army than an anti-Daemon army.

As you say, Daemons all had invulnerable saves and eternal warrior. The same couldn't be said for Tyranids. What's more, with the introduction of Halberds that granted +2I, GKs could strike as fast as Genestealers, removing even the initiative advantage Tyranids might have otherwise possessed.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/14 21:52:44


Post by: Legal-e-tea


I miss the days when GW would define a rule (e.g. Deep Strike, Feel No Pain) and then just use that for all codices.

I also miss rerolls being sacred, being rewarded for getting to the side/behind a vehicle, and most of all proper weapon skill. A Guardsman does not hit Khan as easily as he hits his Guardsman mate!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/15 02:22:15


Post by: Steelmage99


There isn't much I get nostalgic about from Rogue Trader....
But 2nd Edition? Oh, man.

Weapons with Guess range.
Persistent smoke clouds, that moved randomly each turn.
Datafaxes.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/16 11:20:56


Post by: The_Peacemaker


I miss being able to take bionics on all my guardsmen sergents and then proceed to roll 6's and get them back up. Having 3 lone sergents running round the table was a hoot!

I miss, and probably always will miss, terrain height. I like the +1 to armour that cover gives in 8th edition, but I feel GeeDubs could have done more with cover. Some terrain could give -1 to hit. If this was the case then I might be able to like the all LOS everywhere.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I miss the days when my Broadside railguns weren't weaker than the lascannon a space marine can carry on his shoulder, despite being over twice the size. The days when they were terrifying tank killers who could kill a land raider with a single well placed shot, rather than their current status of drowning enemies in missiles.


I miss this too. Was VERY annoyed to see them reduced to less than a lascannon.


#1 thing I miss the most?
Jump/shoot/jump with Tau jetpacks.
Bad Balistic skill was tolerable when we had this.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/16 22:52:24


Post by: NH Gunsmith


I miss when I found 40k fun...


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/17 13:43:56


Post by: stonehorse


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


This!
I think we can safely close this thread now.

8th is the edition that made me give up on 40k, I've been playing since the start of 2nd edition. Seeing what GW and 40K have morphed into is honestly quite upsetting. Reading this thread and remembering all the previous editions made me sad at just how lackluster and corporate the current 40K is.

RIP 40k... you were a fun game, that gave players years of enjoyment and laughter.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 06:00:23


Post by: jobalisk


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


Yeah, I feel you. I'd love to play some good old school 40k. But noone at the club I'm at wants to play anything but 8th ed.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 06:57:49


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 jobalisk wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


Yeah, I feel you. I'd love to play some good old school 40k. But noone at the club I'm at wants to play anything but 8th ed.


Honestly, 8e is pretty good I think.

For the things I miss, there's a lot more that I don't. And 8e in general is pretty streamlined, not-arcane, and reasonably well balanced [at least was until C:SM 2.0 came out]


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 07:04:40


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
^Ugh. That's so dumb.

Man, those S10 AP1 Railcannons were effing terrifying back in 3rd and 4th. I guess 5th too, but the vehicle damage chart changed and made them a little tougher.

Speaking of 3rd and 4th. I miss the Monolith of those days. The superheavy before superheavies.


I mean....they're AP4 and can cause mortal wounds and have two shots. So calling them worse than lascannons is a bit of a stretch.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 10:10:30


Post by: SeanDavid1991


 jobalisk wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


Yeah, I feel you. I'd love to play some good old school 40k. But noone at the club I'm at wants to play anything but 8th ed.


Because 8e is actually fun.

I made this thread to highlight some lovely old times. But it did what I hoped it would. Brought out conversations.

Conversations about things that made people love the hobby.

Conversations about the horrors of things that have been and changed.

The game is ever changing, if you don't like it as it is now just read through this thread and see how much has changed. Chances are it will change again, so people don't need to moan relentlessly. If you don't like game in it's current state, shelf your army and wait. Or learn to enjoy what it currently is and look forward to what changes it brings in future.

That being said, I do miss the days when you could combat hop with combat armies. I went through about 4/5 lists all getting mephisted because mephiston could combat hop destroy me, it was fun learning to counter that.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 11:01:03


Post by: wallygator


For me, as stated before, i do miss the blast templates and scatter dice, armor facing and fire arks of vehicle weapons.
But the things i miss most is the -to hit modifier you used to get when shooting through other squads (friend and foe) to shoot at some guys knee, and the time before CP and reroll stratagem. I do find stratas fun as it extends your tactical options, but i do enjoy the game more when both sides have burned all their CP, and a diceroll's result is more definitive. There's a lot more tension about crucial rolls that way.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 18:11:21


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^Ugh. That's so dumb.

Man, those S10 AP1 Railcannons were effing terrifying back in 3rd and 4th. I guess 5th too, but the vehicle damage chart changed and made them a little tougher.

Speaking of 3rd and 4th. I miss the Monolith of those days. The superheavy before superheavies.


I mean....they're AP4 and can cause mortal wounds and have two shots. So calling them worse than lascannons is a bit of a stretch.


A: I don't think I did.

B: There's two shots because there's two of them. It's like a twin linked Lascannon. So each Railgun is S8 AP-4 D6D, 6+ to wound does a Mortal. Which is. . . comparable to a Lascannon. I thikn I'd rather have S9 than an additonal AP and a potential mortal. (Also, marine Lascannons can be -4 now because of Doctrines)
But the original was outright superior at S10 AP1 72" range vs. S9 AP2 48" range. Even more superior because of how armor-pen and/or damage tables worked, depending on edition.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 18:52:56


Post by: the_scotsman


 wallygator wrote:
For me, as stated before, i do miss the blast templates and scatter dice, armor facing and fire arks of vehicle weapons.
But the things i miss most is the -to hit modifier you used to get when shooting through other squads (friend and foe) to shoot at some guys knee, and the time before CP and reroll stratagem. I do find stratas fun as it extends your tactical options, but i do enjoy the game more when both sides have burned all their CP, and a diceroll's result is more definitive. There's a lot more tension about crucial rolls that way.


You know, I also kind of feel this. Once you get to turn 3, when you've each got like 2-3CP left and you're looking to just squeeze the maximum out of the few stratagems you have left, is honestly the most fun part of the game to me now.

Turn 1-2, when 2/3 of either army just gets shoveled off the table, have become a bit mechanical.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 19:44:36


Post by: jeff white


the_scotsman wrote:
 wallygator wrote:
For me, as stated before, i do miss the blast templates and scatter dice, armor facing and fire arks of vehicle weapons.
But the things i miss most is the -to hit modifier you used to get when shooting through other squads (friend and foe) to shoot at some guys knee, and the time before CP and reroll stratagem. I do find stratas fun as it extends your tactical options, but i do enjoy the game more when both sides have burned all their CP, and a diceroll's result is more definitive. There's a lot more tension about crucial rolls that way.


You know, I also kind of feel this. Once you get to turn 3, when you've each got like 2-3CP left and you're looking to just squeeze the maximum out of the few stratagems you have left, is honestly the most fun part of the game to me now.

Turn 1-2, when 2/3 of either army just gets shoveled off the table, have become a bit mechanical.


Meh, ... why not just get rid of the models entirely,
and play the card game instead?

2nd ed was a proper miniatures game.
3rd, 4th... valiant efforts.

Came back at the tail-end of 7th,
and bought the infamous Imperial Agents book for myself for my Birthday to celebrate.

Slavered all over the release of 8th, figuring we would see more continuity after GW puked blood all over WFB fans.

But, they decided to us instead.

Yeah, OK, there are some cool enough plastic models,
contrast paints have been fun (reminiscent to the old inks, anyone?)
and Sisters are OK for the most part,
but...
this guy nailed it here:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 stonehorse wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


This!
I think we can safely close this thread now.

8th is the edition that made me give up on 40k, I've been playing since the start of 2nd edition. Seeing what GW and 40K have morphed into is honestly quite upsetting. Reading this thread and remembering all the previous editions made me sad at just how lackluster and corporate the current 40K is.

RIP 40k... you were a fun game, that gave players years of enjoyment and laughter.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 20:08:34


Post by: Insectum7


Imo 8th is pretty good, overall. I rate it behind 4th and 2nd, but it's pretty solid. I think it has really great foundations. Take away Stratagems and the SM supplements, then add in some terrain rules and you've got a great game.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 20:13:20


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


8th is my favourite edition, tied with 5th, if you don't take it too seriously.

I think a lot of stratagems could be pruned back, as above, and I'm not overly a fan of the SM supplements (I love the extra lore and successor stuff and the alternative relics and traits and powers, but I'm not a fan of all the "free" stuff), but generally speaking, it's fun to play.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 20:15:32


Post by: Elbows


I was on board with 8th until the killiness just steadily went off the charts...making the game feel utterly pointless in too many cases. Haven't played in 5-6 months and don't see myself doing so again. It's all good though, I left after 3.5 and only came back in 8th, so I'll convert my armies back to 2nd ed. style or adopt other rules, etc.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:14:47


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Yeah, big nerf for the broadside railguns.

OTOH, the model itself is way smaller than a hammerhead railcannon to the point of questionably being the same weapon.


That said, this edition being S10 is an actually pointless feature, since for some reason they decided to make vehicles T7 and T8 rather than T8 & T9 [or even make use of opening up the scales and re-stat them and their weapons].


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:16:19


Post by: Martel732


The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:17:57


Post by: Vaktathi


 Elbows wrote:
I was on board with 8th until the killiness just steadily went off the charts...making the game feel utterly pointless in too many cases. Haven't played in 5-6 months and don't see myself doing so again. It's all good though, I left after 3.5 and only came back in 8th, so I'll convert my armies back to 2nd ed. style or adopt other rules, etc.


I'm increasingly liking the idea of 8th without stratagems or subfaction bonuses. It takes a lot of the gimmickry out of the game, dramatically reduces the alpha strike potential and killing power, makes many restrictions and downsides much more meaningful, and is less stuff to keep track of or account for. Not a perfect solution, but I do find it an improvement generally.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:19:17


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.


The only gun on-paper more powerful than the Hammerhead railgun back when I first played was the Medusa Siege Artillery Gun, which was armorbane and small blast @ 48" instead of having 72" range. [The Vanquisher gun and meltaguns were also more powerful against heavy targets, being armorbane.]

It used to be great, my friend played Tau, and I played Guard, and the game was basically tank duels between Leman Russes and Hammerheads.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:20:53


Post by: Martel732


I mean more catastrophic than it was in the game. The magical armor result roll was always an issue. It should have been a D weapon before D weapons.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:23:38


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Martel732 wrote:
I mean more catastrophic than it was in the game. The magical armor result roll was always an issue. It should have been a D weapon before D weapons.


I wouldn't have gone that far. It's not that massive. I think D weapons shouldn't have been part of the game more than older weapons should have been more lethal. Destroyer being introduced with it's "if it hits, remove the model" was definitely a downhill moment for the game, especially when they went back and made a ton of weapons for one faction destroyer but didn't do so for powerful weapons elsewhere.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:25:12


Post by: Martel732


The weapon is almost as long as the tank. And its high tech. Anyway, that's my view on it. It should have been able to reliably one shot a Russ, not roll to hit, roll to pen, then pray for a magical damage die.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:32:07


Post by: Grimtuff


 Elbows wrote:
I was on board with 8th until the killiness just steadily went off the charts...making the game feel utterly pointless in too many cases. Haven't played in 5-6 months and don't see myself doing so again. It's all good though, I left after 3.5 and only came back in 8th, so I'll convert my armies back to 2nd ed. style or adopt other rules, etc.


Same here. Not played (anything, in fact. feth all gamers want to show up at an FLGS, but I digress...) since roughly September as I have no desire to trudge my stuff into town to get blown away by the latest unpainted meta chasing SM army that seems to infect my local GW, which is the only place I've been able to get somewhat regular games of 40k, despite there being an abundance of places to play in this city, yet no opponents.

At this point I wonder why I am still in this hobby with what I see it become on social media. People taking stuff far to seriously (both in and out of fiction) and everything revolving around a godforsaken metagame that I never signed up for and apparently if I wish to continue in this game I have to distort my armies into something that only resembles them in the broadest strokes to apparently have a fighting chance.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:32:27


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Martel732 wrote:
The weapon is almost as long as the tank. And its high tech. Anyway, that's my view on it. It should have been able to reliably one shot a Russ, not roll to hit, roll to pen, then pray for a magical damage die.


I have a lot of other opinions on railguns in general, but I felt that it was pretty adequately powerful for what's expected of it. I might have said "that would be neat" back in 5th, but after the days of 7th, if it needed to be more powerful, giving it armorbane would have been fine. We don't, didn't, and shouldn't need more destroyer or destroyer mechanics in the game.

As for weapon perceived power, I've also always thought that a Earthshaker should be more powerful. It was plenty powerful, but given what actually happens to tanks hit by artillery...


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:32:45


Post by: Insectum7


Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:34:18


Post by: Martel732


Depends on the artillery. But direct hits should be much more difficult for the artillery. It's a level of sophistication not possible in GWs system. But the hammerhead always felt way too weak to me. Single shot weapons have progressively gotten worse and worse in GW-land, too. Look at melta now.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:35:07


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


 Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.


Me too. I think that the heavy AT guns should be damage 2d6 or something. It wouldn't step on the toes of former destroyer weapons, because the Shadowsword does 2d6 6 times, not just once or twice. The Space Marine Laser Destroyer rolls 4d6 dice for damage [with a minimum of 12!], the Railgun and Vanquisher should definitely be able to make at least the 4d6.

Hammerheads should probably get a grinding advance ability, like most other factions main battle tanks, and have a damage promotion to at least 2d6 [maybe 2d6 with a floor or even 3d6]. That would definitely make them a competitive option.

The Vanquisher Gun is a pretty obvious point-out for the stupidity. Besides for some reason being S8, they're afraid to give a weapon more than 1d6 damage. Except the Demolisher Cannon gets a whole 2d6 for 1d6 each [that's 7d6 on average], and the basic Battle Cannon averages almost 4d6 downrange of damage, versus the Vanquisher Tank Gun among the most powerful AT weapons in the Imperium and prized for it's first-shot kill rate on heavy tanks, averages 2d6, and the Railcannon, also counted among the most powerful antitank weapons in the setting short of a titanic superlaser, averages only a tiny 1d6, and is exactly as good as a little itty bitty lascannon.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:36:39


Post by: Insectum7


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
The Hammerhead railgun should have always caused catastrophic damage.

I agree that it should have been more powerful than the suit version, yes. And that definitely shouldn't have come at the expense of the suit version.
At least now it could have S 16 or whatever, to wound T8 on a 2. It should be better than it is for sure, I'd love to see more Hammerheads on the table because it's a great model.


Me too. I think that the heavy AT guns should be damage 2d6 or something. It wouldn't step on the toes of former destroyer weapons, because the Shadowsword does 2d6 6 times, not just once or twice.


Hear hear!


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:36:55


Post by: the_scotsman


Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery. A vehicle that is moderately durable that can shoot all the way across the board can just...have that be its thing, it doesnt HAVE to totally invalidate all the points another model paid for its durability.

Id be a-ok with making railguns do more reliable damage. Min 3 damage would be a start.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:40:21


Post by: Insectum7


the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.


Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:41:04


Post by: Martel732


If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.


Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.


I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:44:04


Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine


Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.


This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:44:21


Post by: Insectum7


Actaully, yeah. You know what I miss? The days of 3rd ed when if Marneus Calgar failed his 4+ save, he just dies because of Instant Death.

High powered weapons in 2nd and 3rd often just annihilated characters if they were caught. In 2nd you could get a Displacer field (3++), but you could only have one, and it'd be on a model with 3-4 wounds in an environment where a Heavy Bolter did D4 damage and a Lascannon did 2D6.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.


This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

4th Ed. But close enough


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:45:40


Post by: Martel732


 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.


This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.


5th or 3rd. I'd entertain an argument for either. 5th was the beginning of MOAR FIREPOWER! though. I remember my WD codex BA got tabled by the 5th ed IG codex in 2.5 turns.

4th ed skimmer rules were unforgivable. I can't go for 4th. Also, made transports deathtraps if I recall.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:48:47


Post by: Insectum7


Martel732 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
RoF is god.


This has been a problem since hull points became a thing. This is why IMO 5e was best.

5th was the beginning of MOAR FIREPOWER!


Yah. The number of high AP weapons started to balloon real badly. As did the number of "MC"s with high numbers of wounds.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 21:50:13


Post by: Martel732


fething IG plasma spam made me a very sad Panda. Then the saviour for power armor was the GK. /facepalm. I really hate GW's design philosophy.

Marines felt like marines in 3rd and 4th at least. I'll give them that, Eldar and Tau skimmer shenanigans notwithstanding.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:14:50


Post by: Hellebore


Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.


Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.


I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.


Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:21:19


Post by: Martel732


That would be a big help. But the commonality if 5++ makes -2 ap the sweet spot to me. Which is a bit nuts.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:21:34


Post by: JNAProductions


Hellebore wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.


Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.


I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.


Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons
That does not work. Because... Well, do you really want 3-wound Plaguebearers? But on the flip side, a GUO with two extra wounds but no save... He'll drop like a punk even more than he already does.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:23:40


Post by: Martel732


Yeah good point


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:29:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 JNAProductions wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
If anything should invalidate durability, its that railgun. It needs to ignore or reduce invulns as well. It overloads the field in the spot it hits or something. Instead, the go to Tau weapon is Robotech missiles vs everything. Because RoF is god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah but at the same time, stuff should be allowed to be cool by being durable. The game has progressed so far into stuff being cool by being murdery.


Sorta, I mean we have those Custodes with 3W, 2+ armor and a 4+ invuln wandering around. Not to mention those Shield capatins with a T6, 7W and a 3++, etc. . .

This brings me back to the tank armor thing again. Back in the day they were absolutely immune to small arms, and that helped differentiate them from fancy characters with invulns.


I don't think that's the issue. Wounding on 6s is basically wasting your fire in 8th. I'd get rid of invulns myself. They cause more trouble than they are worth. They make costing certain weapon types very hard.


Or at least change how they work. You could for example make invulnerable saves add ablative wounds - 1 for each of pt they currently grant. So a 3+ save gives +4 wounds to models profile.

It's easier to balance but still leaves them vulnerable to high damage weapons
That does not work. Because... Well, do you really want 3-wound Plaguebearers? But on the flip side, a GUO with two extra wounds but no save... He'll drop like a punk even more than he already does.


I'd love six-wound Custodian infantry, but this does highlight 40k's model count problem where because everything gets attacks per model/wounds per model any change you make to anything gets multiplied massively more for swarm armies. Maybe it'd be interesting to think about trying to design the game so you don't need to have five-model single-wound infantry units and thirty-model single-wound infantry units in the same game.

That or bring back morale/sweeping or introduce some kind of suppression mechanic so you don't have to kill every single model on the table with attacks and maybe the dry math of how many attacks it takes to kill a given unit isn't quite so important.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 22:30:23


Post by: Hellebore


I was responding to comments about removing invulnerable saves entirely, so it was already a lethal change. All I did was offer an option that was slightly less lethal than that.

In the context of that conversation it works fine, you're not comparing it to the correct thing.



I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 23:15:23


Post by: JNAProductions


Hellebore wrote:
I was responding to comments about removing invulnerable saves entirely, so it was already a lethal change. All I did was offer an option that was slightly less lethal than that.

In the context of that conversation it works fine, you're not comparing it to the correct thing.

Then explain how it DOES work.

Explain how this change works.

Because right now, it looks like it RIDICULOUSLY overpowers 1-Wound Invuln models (Harlequins going from 1 wound glass-cannons to 4-wound murder machines, or Plaguebearers going from a durable T4 6+/5++/5+++ wound to a ridiculously durable three T4 6+/5+++ wounds) while doing basically nothing for tougher models with an invuln (GUO going from 18 to 20 wounds, but losing their 5++ in exchange for a 6+, or a Knight going from 24 to 26 wounds).


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/18 23:25:33


Post by: Luke_Prowler


Instant Death as a mechanic can go feth itself. If you think multi wound infantry are bad now, they were persona non grata in earlier editions. They were so much more expensive compared to a single model unit they were never used unless they were 5+ toughness.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/19 02:56:32


Post by: jobalisk


 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
 jobalisk wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


Yeah, I feel you. I'd love to play some good old school 40k. But noone at the club I'm at wants to play anything but 8th ed.


Because 8e is actually fun.

I made this thread to highlight some lovely old times. But it did what I hoped it would. Brought out conversations.

Conversations about things that made people love the hobby.

Conversations about the horrors of things that have been and changed.

The game is ever changing, if you don't like it as it is now just read through this thread and see how much has changed. Chances are it will change again, so people don't need to moan relentlessly. If you don't like game in it's current state, shelf your army and wait. Or learn to enjoy what it currently is and look forward to what changes it brings in future.

That being said, I do miss the days when you could combat hop with combat armies. I went through about 4/5 lists all getting mephisted because mephiston could combat hop destroy me, it was fun learning to counter that.


I'm not saying that I don't play 8th, and I'm not saying its not fun in its own way. But I definatly had more fun with the older rules. Having said that, it might also be the people I play with here VS the people I used to play 4/5/6th ed 40k with,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 wallygator wrote:
For me, as stated before, i do miss the blast templates and scatter dice, armor facing and fire arks of vehicle weapons.
But the things i miss most is the -to hit modifier you used to get when shooting through other squads (friend and foe) to shoot at some guys knee, and the time before CP and reroll stratagem. I do find stratas fun as it extends your tactical options, but i do enjoy the game more when both sides have burned all their CP, and a diceroll's result is more definitive. There's a lot more tension about crucial rolls that way.


You know, I also kind of feel this. Once you get to turn 3, when you've each got like 2-3CP left and you're looking to just squeeze the maximum out of the few stratagems you have left, is honestly the most fun part of the game to me now.

Turn 1-2, when 2/3 of either army just gets shoveled off the table, have become a bit mechanical.


Meh, ... why not just get rid of the models entirely,
and play the card game instead?

2nd ed was a proper miniatures game.
3rd, 4th... valiant efforts.

Came back at the tail-end of 7th,
and bought the infamous Imperial Agents book for myself for my Birthday to celebrate.

Slavered all over the release of 8th, figuring we would see more continuity after GW puked blood all over WFB fans.

But, they decided to us instead.

Yeah, OK, there are some cool enough plastic models,
contrast paints have been fun (reminiscent to the old inks, anyone?)
and Sisters are OK for the most part,
but...
this guy nailed it here:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 stonehorse wrote:
 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I miss when I found 40k fun...


This!
I think we can safely close this thread now.

8th is the edition that made me give up on 40k, I've been playing since the start of 2nd edition. Seeing what GW and 40K have morphed into is honestly quite upsetting. Reading this thread and remembering all the previous editions made me sad at just how lackluster and corporate the current 40K is.

RIP 40k... you were a fun game, that gave players years of enjoyment and laughter.


And this is true too. I mean, just look at Space Marines being slowly dissolved by primerus. Its another example of GW just silently screwing people over.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/19 09:45:15


Post by: Karol


Now I don't have the expiriance of prior editions, but I don't think I will ever miss pre PA4 grey knights. And 9th ed would have to more or less revert to being worse then pre PA4 GK for me to feel like 8th ed was better then 9th.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/19 09:47:59


Post by: SeanDavid1991


Karol wrote:
Now I don't have the expiriance of prior editions, but I don't think I will ever miss pre PA4 grey knights. And 9th ed would have to more or less revert to being worse then pre PA4 GK for me to feel like 8th ed was better then 9th.


I think workshop may have learnt their lesson there. (inb4 - workshop bad, workshop don't learn yadda yadda).

but pray they won't ever be like 5th ed knights. great for GK players. Bad for everyone else and people in my store actively stopped playing against GK's. A single troop could one shot any character that wasn't a monster that didn't have eternal warrior.


I miss the days.... @ 2020/02/19 10:45:50


Post by: Jidmah


I know a guy who still refuses to play against GK because of 5th

Psyfleman spam and invincible paladins were no fun at all. Oh and the "hordes auto-lose" psychic power was nice, too.