The purpose of this thread is for those of us who are tired of the GW rollercoaster of points and rules changes that make the game something we don't enjoy with "the next edition"
I decided to start this topic as i notice a load of people who really like the skirmish play of RT and second edition (never played it myself but i have some of the books). or those like myself who started in 3rd who think the direction that 9th is going is a bad direction we are not interested in moving into it.
There obviously is a drive for players to want to play the current edition, but nobody is forcing us to.
Because of that. this thread will lend itself to social or casual play and not the current tournament meta.
Nobody disputes how great GWs model have become. i myself am tempted to pick up some primaris to use in 30K as MKIV maximus armor for my legion for example.
with that in mind feel free to tell us
.what edition you prefer and why
.how does your local gaming group feel about playing/supporting the older editions
.what rules do you use, including house rules
.post your battle reports.
.post your retro armies.
I got my start with dark angels back in mid 3rd ed so i have been playing for 2 decades. my preference is for 5th edition as the logical progression of the game.
6th edition was a death sentence for 40K at our FLGS, it came back a bit in 7th and more in 8th, after seeing the direction that GW is going with 9th i am completely turned off by it.
I find 8th bare bones to be excellent for playing in epic 6mm scale and still do with halving all movement and weapon ranges.
With great 3rd party companies like vanguard, onslaught, trolls under the bridge (necrons and some rare guard units) and other 3d printed sellers on ebay there is no shortage of any 40K unit to play with in 6mm scale.
Our FLGS has a small group of veterans who have been playing as long as i have who also prefer 5th and are teaching people to play it.(just did a game last night with 2 players who only knew 8th)
To make 5th even better we took the time to consider all the best rules from all compatible editions (3-7) and put them into 5th with 5th as the core rules. this allows all the players to choose which of the codex editions they want to use to represent their force.
For example our khorne player is using 3.5 my space marines and our blood angels are using 5th. my mechanicus are using 7th.
these are the "house rules" that we pulled from other editions and put into 5th
.rapid fire weapon rules (6th/7th)
.snap fire(6th/7th)
.new weapon profiles(grav etc..)(6th/7th)
.overwatch(6th/7th)
.objective secure-troops choice(6th/7th)
.CCWAP value(6th/7th)
.grenade throwing(6th/7th)
.fearless-no LD checks(3rd)
.3+ reserves(6th/7th)
.flyer rules(7th+5th/forge world flyer rules)-jump units can assault, -12" range penalty for guns, immobilize result= destroyed
.6th edition smash for MCs(half attacks rounded up max S 10)
.psyker powers used when in the proper phase(shooting attacks in shooting phase, melee in CC etc..) on lD check/selecting the known powers available at the start of the game as per 5th ed rules-includes all 7th edition disciplines.
.snipers-strength 3 always hits on 2+/wounds on 4+/rending on 6+ (3rd/4th)
.defensive weapons on vehicles-S5 or less do not count as heavy weapons if the vehicle moves at combat speed (and is not stunned/shaken)-4th
So what's your favorite version of 40K and how do you play it?
3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
Blackie wrote: 3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
Blackie wrote: 3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
I agree with this.
During...6 th? I hodge podged a system with 3rd, 4th and some 2nd to have things like tanks being able to move and shoot guns on a sliding scale of speed, having armour ratings, having squads be able to split up tactically into fire teams, having HW teams able to split off, having some modified assault rules to lessen CC, but introducing more sustained fire dice to speed up shooting - which I recall made things much more binary unfortunately. It was slightly more a mash up of WH40K and Space Crusade with some more modern (for the time) elements.
I wish I'd kept it. It wouldn't have been any good but could have been an interesting talking point.
I was more proud of my Epic games played with WH40K minis. Each figure was X number of troops. Yeah each one now needed counters but it worked out ok-ish.
I have a model collection that extends back to RT days. Due to some bad experiences, I stopped playing in 2E; the rest of my friends stopped when 3E dropped.
I continued to collect models here and there (primarily a Tau army, and starters to keep up with the rules), but didn't get back into full swing until the Necron rerelease at the tail end of 5th.
Overall, of all the rulesets, I'll take 8th, with a few tweaks.
- Alternating Activations
- 1,000 to 1,250 pts.
- No superheavies
- No named characters
The games I've played have been tense and fun, but my primary opponent - my son - has drifted off to other games, and I'm back to collecting for the hell of it. After a few years down the road, I may end up finally selling the majority of my models and just keeping a token bit that I really enjoy, as ruleswise I have so many other games that are far more interesting than 40K.
It wasn't the core rules that I liked so much about 2nd, it was how well the armies represented their factions in the lists.
Modern Eldar are a conceptual shadow of their 2nd ed selves (not their rules as there were a few abusable bits). The army played like it should. A farseer wasn't the lynchpin of the army like it is now. Exarchs and warlocks were the heroes they should be.
Veteran marines were actually better than normal marines, as the profile allowed fhis.
For me, I would keep most of 2nd Ed core rules except the following:
Sustained fire - remove the dice as it was time consuming and abnormally high jamming.
BSWS and I. I would have made these opposed values - initiative being what a unit used to oppose WS and BS. This way BS would scale beyond 5 more effectively.
Simplified melee - the aforementioned opposed to initiative, using the 8th s vs t table.
Simplified blast rules, jump pack rules and the other unnecessarily complex rules.
Simplified dice (no d&d dice).
8th Ed vehicle rules (which are based on some old 1st ed rules)
Basically if you remember the specialist games edition of necromunda, I think they did most things right in simplifying the 2nd Ed rules.
Except the WSBS vs I thing, those necromunda rules are pretty close to what I want.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
Our group actually likes those because it adds immersion to the game.
tanks being able to move and shoot guns on a sliding scale of speed
That is basically what we do with the 4th ed vehicles moving more at the cost of less accurate shooting to avoid getting hit in CC we just combined it with snap fire. so the vehicle can still shoot even at full speed(not flat out) but only hitting on 6+ to represent inaccurate fire. the slower they go the more guns can shoot at normal BS.
it is kinda difficult to reverse implement newer units.
Do you have some examples? i haven't seen any before 8th changed the entire game that were a problem.
I'm using the mechanicus in 5th and it is a 7th ed codex, have not seen a problem yet.
Lord discordant comes to mind. but that is 8th, aswell as R&H through IA13, which came out in 7th and whilest fun and balanced there if you ignore formations (IMPORTANT) they do tend to overperform a bit against armies off 5th.
The lord discordant is doubly annoying though:
Especially if you want to use him for the fact that he should enable Daemonengines he is kinda required to have his aura and they do bite a bit with the IC rules (course as a vehicle he isn't, common sense and that but there's also the fact that he is priced extremely competitve for 8th and 8th was an edition in which many armies got alot cheaper pts wise compared to the older ones.) that are around in 5th.
Also point cost is a bit iffy because how do you place it compared to other units that existed and those that didn't.
Another issue is if you have factions that only got updated all 3 -4 editions like R&H, granted the rules are easily convertable because of the fact that 5-7th basically have the same rough framework but it still can be an issue to reverse implement factions that way.
@not online
That's easily fixed. if a USR that was added in say 7th (you are right formations were a cancer) does not exist in 5th it does not exist, ignore it./adjust it to be a USR in 5th (all 2 1/4 pages for a total of 22).
For example dunestrider adds 3" to movement and charge ranges. since there is standardized movement and all charge ranges are universally 6" or 12" (beast and cavalry) in 5th, they just replace dunestrider with fleet of foot/claw. as it is supposed to represent a units ability to traverse terrain.
As for points aberration. 5th edition core rules take over. for example the 3rd/3.5 chaos codex and marine codex makes them pay extra for grenades, the 5th ed codexes gives them all for free. so you use the later ignore points for grenades. Since this is fun casual play as long as points are close it doesn't have to be exact.
It is also more thematic. we all know every marine is going to be issued grenades. going a few points over because of codex diversion isn't a major issue.
The game play results have been positive in my experience.
oh absolutely, but there is a in issue with certain factions having skipped between power massivly in only 2 updated instances.
R&H f.e. had a free PDF from early 4th, and later only showed up in IA13, both beeing massively different and having massive isues with balance associated, however , going the extra mile and balancing the unit is worth it.
We adopted a non-formation 7th with houserules for modifying USR salad etc, and attempted to rebalance some of the points, aswell as allies.
And it was worth the work, especialy compared to late stage 8th becoming not disimilar in many ways to 7th late stage with formation issues and other rather amusing things like Taudar.
Favourite editions: 5th/8th.
My "local" is pretty diverse. If I wanted an older system, I could probably get it, if I wanted it.
Play 8th, with house rules of generally ignoring subfaction abilities, or really anything beyond the core datasheets and faction stratagems. If I went back to 5th, I wouldn't be keeping templates and vehicle facings. A feature I did like of 5th was all power weapons just being *power weapon*, and it's something I'd like from 8th/9th - no difference between axes, swords, mauls and spears.
Formations were fun, but the bonuses were too good. Putting it into an 8th/9th framework, just giving an extra CP bonus would be cool.
I kind of have to separate "indexhammer" 8th from "current" 8th in my mind. I really enjoyed indexhammer while it lasted, but the slow descent of 8th into "Collectible Command Point Card Game" has soured me on it a bit. One faction now has access to over 50 different stratagems with 16 of those being inter-changeable based on how your dudes are painted.
I am pretty hopeful about 9th just because fewer command points all at once and more "Command point to give your dude an ability all game" than "Spend 5 command points to make your dudes +2A, reroll hits and wounds, attack twice, and kill 4x their point value in a single turn"
but in terms of older editions, I do like to play me some 2nd ed every once in a while. A word of caution for those whose glasses may be tinted pink though: go into 2nd understanding that you will need to be playing MORE enforced-casually, not less, than 8th.
2nd is not a balanced game, and it is not a game where rules are written in ANY kind of precise language. There is a lot to love in there, and a lot of fun stuff, but it is an old-school simulationist wargame, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to a tight, competitive newer style wargame.
I'm talking you're gonna roll on tables, You're going to roll to see what happens to see what happens to see what table you roll on to see where you move to see how big you explode to see who it hits to see if they save.... You're going to have wild, crazy, stupid wargear combinations that flat out do not work but the game will allow you to take them if you want to, you're going to have that old-school big list of to-hit mods with entries like "Is the target in cover? Ok, but is it like, earthworks, or plants, or a concrete wall, though? How big is the size of the target - smaller than a bread box? Bigger than an elephant?"
Currently, 40k is kind of a hybrid chimera of the two, and mostly when I see people complaining about 40k they're wishing it be more like a competitive game than a simulationist game. That game, you're not going to find by going back into old editions.
Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
Second edition was the wild western and the game was highly abusive where you could build characters that could singel handedly kill the other team or similar. A lott of cool rules, and a lot of dead mead to the rules system that was never used. Stil it was cool with all the books and rare models to find and build etc. It was a very different time for the hobby, and the fact that internett was not very pressent.
5th edituion was horrible! Vehicles essentually had an 'exstra save' where you just rolled on a table to see if it died, and it rarly did. Close combat units did not get to hit first in a charge despite having high I because they lacked frag greandes. It was a horrible time to be playing tyranids in particular. Armies had terrible internal balances and even worse external balanses.
Stil I really miss my Space Wolves group commanders that could break up from one unit and join other units. That was a really good rule. As was long fangs, grey hunters and the forge world special character really fun! (Although doom of mymeria might have been 6th edition now that I think of it.)
Dark Eldars where fun. Baron Satonyx in a biiiiiiig unit of beasts where imensly fun.
But all in all 5th edition benefitted parking lot armies a lot, and it was really misserable.
6th edition was just like fifth edition with two main differenses. Allies! Every one (except tyranids) could allie. It was not good for the game. Secondly undercosted planes where everywhere. Imperial guard in particular had units that where waaaaaaaay to undercosted for their sustain and damage output. (The 3 twin lascannon one, and the 20 shot heavy bolter hitting on 2's with re-roll one.) 6th edition was the 'flying inntroduction' edition and it was horrible.
8th edition is fun. But games take to long. I also with it was easier to get coversaves. That GW go in and erata point costs and nerf point costs is the best thing to happen to the game.
Blackie wrote: 3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
I agree with this other than lost of blast plates, keep them gone. Oh and older amounts of DSing was fine, some DS/Outflank is a good thing, but i get what you mean, the ability to DS a Knight is stupid.
9th for sure is looking much better, if they limit the re-rolls i'd be very happy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
And thats why "Forge the narrative" was so big in 7th to teach people its a game and not everyone has the same terrain, rules are made to make a more enjoyable experience, but if they stricken the rules to much then the game plays itself (it does now b.c there are to little rules but thats a different topic) If someone can no handle playing a game with abstract concepts IDK how they can play ANY game then. So what if that wall has a hole, for our purpose its solid, or has smoke, or other debris is in the way, etc.. it is a WARZONE you can not possible make it that real for a table top game without 100's of hours and dollars building a non mobile terrain table with plaster, debris, etc.. and no one is going to do that or play on that for a local shop.
People like him you can 100% ignore, as they will never be happy, and GW does ignore them.
3rd and 4th edition were my favourite, even with some of their seriously broken characteristics.
If 40k were to be completely rewritten (here is hoping for 10th)....using the the 3rd & 4th editions as a base and combining better game systems (d10 & d20s) would be a vast improvement over all.
I much preferred the fewer dice rolls of past editions and the way in which very "skewed" outcomes were produced. Sometimes your tanks just blew up, or all your guys fell out and died etc...
I understand why a lot of the "weirdness" was tamed in order to generate more player "strategic control", but I think they went too far now in not wanting to frustrate/alienate competitive players from table flipping because the dice did not go their way. Strategems and re-rolls are cool no doubt, but they function too much as a pacifier for players who can't take losing more so than they do as strategic choices. Would be better to roll some of the more "automatic use" strategems into the respective factions specials rules..
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.
But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.
Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.
You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.
Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?
2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.
2nd edition allowed for shooting into melee. Sure make it a morale test or something but given how callous and desperate the 40K universe should be, many factions should have the option to try. Certain factions like Tyranids shouldn't even hesitate to do so (of course they also auto-pass morale tests). I remember shooting a barbed strangler at a melee between a surviving Termagant and a Terminator. Clearly the Termagant was doomed sooner or later so I shot into the melee, hit and killed the Termagant, and the resulting strangler blast killed the Terminator. The Hive Mind would clearly consider that a profitable trade.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.
But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.
Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.
You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.
Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?
2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.
Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"
Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.
And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.
Blackie wrote: 3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.
The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.
Exactly this ^
Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.
Also, it is worth noting that, although you can fire into close combat in 2nd edition, it is a somewhat less deadly game. You can get a guardsman squad + A platoon commander for fewer points than a guardsman squad in 2nd ed. And in 2nd ed, a guardsman squad firing at 12" kills 3.25 guardsmen, while in 8th ed, that same guardsmen squad+Platcom (which costs 65pts in 8th vs 100pts in 2nd) removes 6.2 guardsmen and has to roll 37 dice vs 10.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.
But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.
Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.
You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.
Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?
2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.
Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"
Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.
And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.
Yes, but my point is that 2nd edition will not solve that problem for you.
There are no rules for whether or not you can move thru the wall of a ruin in 2nd edition. They do not exist. You have rules for what happens WHEN you move into a building, but no rule for HOW you can or can not. It's up to the players.
Just like it is up to the players in 8th ed. Nothing at all stops you from agreeing with your opponent that a particular ruin wall is impassable terrain. You'd have to do exactly the same thing if you were playing 2nd.
ERJAK wrote: Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.
That's part of what made Epic great. The other part was actually designing a game system around putting Knights, Titans, and squadrons of tanks onto the field; rather than starting with a system that cares about exactly what kind of bladed implement your grunts are carrying, and then trying to append rules for skyscraper-tall robots onto it.
Now we have Apocalypse for that scale of gameplay, and it, similarly to Epic, does a good job of sticking to a defined scale and avoiding excess chrome in the details. 40K was, for most of its history, more of a skirmish game, and I think it worked better at the more coherent scale of 3rd-5th- large enough that we can lump melee implements into 'close combat weapon' or 'power weapon', small enough that superheavies are once-in-a-blue-moon, only-if-both-players-agree add-ons rather than a core part of gameplay.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.
But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.
Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.
You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.
Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?
2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.
Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"
Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.
And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.
Yes, but my point is that 2nd edition will not solve that problem for you.
There are no rules for whether or not you can move thru the wall of a ruin in 2nd edition. They do not exist. You have rules for what happens WHEN you move into a building, but no rule for HOW you can or can not. It's up to the players.
Just like it is up to the players in 8th ed. Nothing at all stops you from agreeing with your opponent that a particular ruin wall is impassable terrain. You'd have to do exactly the same thing if you were playing 2nd.
Well, yes, but I don't care about 2nd edition or not. I was specifically addressing your point that "simulationists" aren't out there (the original post of yours I replied to implied that 40k shouldn't be simulationist because that's not what people wanted).
ERJAK wrote: Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.
That's part of what made Epic great. The other part was actually designing a game system around putting Knights, Titans, and squadrons of tanks onto the field; rather than starting with a system that cares about exactly what kind of bladed implement your grunts are carrying, and then trying to append rules for skyscraper-tall robots onto it.
Now we have Apocalypse for that scale of gameplay, and it, similarly to Epic, does a good job of sticking to a defined scale and avoiding excess chrome in the details. 40K was, for most of its history, more of a skirmish game, and I think it worked better at the more coherent scale of 3rd-5th- large enough that we can lump melee implements into 'close combat weapon' or 'power weapon', small enough that superheavies are once-in-a-blue-moon, only-if-both-players-agree add-ons rather than a core part of gameplay.
That's more or less my view on LoW, knights, flyers, and also Special characters. Opponents agreement and Narrative games, not really for matched play. And Epic, Titanicus, Apocalypse and Aeronautica Imperialis cater to Low and knights/titans. Infantry based company level wargaming with limited armoured support is what i want from 40k.
I started out with 2nd, casually with a few friends, and built up space marines and ork armies beginning with the starter box. Fun times, and while I was more into the modeling, painting, and lore aspects, the few games I played were fun (again, casual). The 2nd edition fluff is still my favorite, nostalgia or not.
After college, I found my old models and picked up the then recently-released 4th edition rules and a space marine codex to start. My models were still valid and I really enjoyed this ruleset. Fluff-wise, I noticed the game had become a lot more serious and less goofy ("grimdark"), but the game rules were an improvement over 2nd: less tables to consult, better use of universal special rules, and a general simplification but not over-simplification. However, I quit soon after due to life changes (marriage, work, etc.) and sold my armies on ebay.
A couple years ago, after having kids, I found my old Blood Bowl figures and got back into playing that game (still my favorite GW game). Then when a Warhammer store opened up down the street where I worked I stopped in and got back into 40k starting with 8th edition. I was skeptical at first, but I have come to like 8th's even more simplified rules, and I now have several armies to play with and for when my boys get a little bit older. Again, just casual, with only the codexes and no supplements.
8th, along with the new Killteam for smaller games, is a ruleset that I can quickly teach friends and family on if they show an interest. While there are definitely a lot of dice to roll/reroll, 8th's core rules are very fitting for a casual beer and pretzels type of game.
I had hoped that 8th would continue to be more of a living ruleset, with an updated rulebook to incorporate the various FAQs over the years, and possibly incorporating some gameplay elements from Killteam and the new Apocalypse (see below). However, I now see 9th as an attempt to focus more on the tournament gamer scene, with more wordy and complex rules, and less of a clean-up of 8th. I anticipate 9th to require many FAQs to clean up the transition from 8th, as well as to help rectify issues that sprout up from the new rules. Having gone through that with 8th, I don't have a desire to go through that again anytime soon.
Instead of jumping into 9th, I decided to pick up a set of older rulebooks and codexes from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. Primarily for their fluff and artwork (which I really adore from the older editions), but also to have to try out some games of the older editions again. Averaging about $5 a rulebook/codex on ebay, these are still very nice books and it is neat to see the rules progression. I have come to really appreciate these older editions, in particular 2nd for its fluff and 3rd/4th/5th for their rulesets (4th may be my favorite from that era and a hybrid 4th/5th edition may very well be the best 40k standard ruleset).
Sidenote: Now owning several armies, I picked up the latest edition of Apocalypse last year to try out. This is now probably my favorite 40k ruleset to play "standard" sized 40k games. Even more beginner player-friendly than 8th, allowing the use of more of my models, with more strategic depth IMO due to alternating activations and wound allocation, and still a bit of crazy randomness due to the card system. I am keeping my older edition 40k rules and codexes for the occassional standard 40k game, but given a choice, I'd prefer to play games of Apocalypse instead.
Final note: And Blood Bowl is still the best GW game
I got in during 4th, but didn't actually play anything until after 5th dropped. So 5th is my preferred edition of the two I played. I prefer 5th because it didn't have the allies shenanigans or flyers. I had the most fun playing the first half of 5th with the WD Codex BA and the second half with Footdar using the 4th ed codex.
I've been unsuccessful at oldhammer. I think I managed to play one game of 5th during 7th.
I prefer editions with limited randomness, so 4th edition would suit my chaos marines best.
Which editions introduced random charges by the way? I've always hated that rule. Also does 8th let you keep the distance you charged even if you didn't full make the charge? I remember one edition that didn't which was ridiculous.
a fat guy wrote: I prefer editions with limited randomness, so 4th edition would suit my chaos marines best.
Which editions introduced random charges by the way? I've always hated that rule. Also does 8th let you keep the distance you charged even if you didn't full make the charge? I remember one edition that didn't which was ridiculous.
I believe 6th was the first I remember with a random charge range - 5th was just a flat 6", if I'm not mistaken?
5th edituion was horrible! Vehicles essentually had an 'exstra save' where you just rolled on a table to see if it died, and it rarly did. Close combat units did not get to hit first in a charge despite having high I because they lacked frag greandes. It was a horrible time to be playing tyranids in particular. Armies had terrible internal balances and even worse external balanses
I did not find any of that to be true at all. vehicles were tough but if you brought the right gun they were either killed outright since they effectively had 1 wound or they were damaged in a way that reduced their effectiveness, monsterous creatures were effectively tanks that could be hurt by most small arms fire but suffered no degradation.
Also tyranids had flesh hook upgrades that counted as "grenades" so they struck at initiative when charging through cover. i fought many very tough nid armies in 5th both horde and monster based and they were tough no matter which way you did it.
As for balance, well it is GW so i never expect complete balance but i do want a fun experience and while 5th did address the min/max las/plas squads for marines the most important factor was it was enjoyable to play. not something i can say i cared for in late 7th formation spam or current 8th stratagem spam.
inal note: And Blood Bowl is still the best GW game
I feel that way about battlefleet gothic-best game GW has ever made, but then again i hate football so a game that simulates it doesn't interest me.
I believe 6th was the first I remember with a random charge range - 5th was just a flat 6", if I'm not mistaken?
Mostly correct. standardized charges were 6" or 12" if you were beast/cavalry/leaping. rolling for range when moving through terrain (back when terrain actually affected gameplay) made sense, random rolls for charging over open flat ground never did. i to despise the random charge range rules that started in 6th.
I prefer editions with limited randomness,
Normally i would agree. except the 4th/5th ork codex, i mean the random charts were so orky. shokk attack gun- "ima gonna fire it, whats it gonna do? i dont know" or the ramshakle table for trukks
5th edituion was horrible! Vehicles essentually had an 'exstra save' where you just rolled on a table to see if it died, and it rarly did. Close combat units did not get to hit first in a charge despite having high I because they lacked frag greandes. It was a horrible time to be playing tyranids in particular. Armies had terrible internal balances and even worse external balanses
I did not find any of that to be true at all. vehicles were tough but if you brought the right gun they were either killed outright since they effectively had 1 wound or they were damaged in a way that reduced their effectiveness, monsterous creatures were effectively tanks that could be hurt by most small arms fire but suffered no degradation.
I'd also like to add that vehicles were nearly always weaker in CC versus Monstrous Creatures (both in terms of them being able to do damage, and in actually receiving it - vehicles could be killed bare handed without too much risk), and vehicles, unlike MCs, had no Armour Save at all. Sure, in 5th a Vehicle could take near-infinite "Wounds", but every time something hurt it, it caused some degree of effect. On the contrary, a MC could hope for it's Armour Save to protect it from all damage entirely, and no matter what, you couldn't kill one outright.
Vehicles were invulnerable to small arms (unless you got a chance to shoot at a weak spot - bolters in the back of a Leman Russ was surprisingly effective in my experience), but were so much weaker after the Wounding/Armour Penetration stage.
For MCs, you had Hit, Wound, Armour Save, Remove Wound.
For Vehicles, you had Hit, Penetrate, Random Detrimental Effect (with chance to kill instantly)
As for balance, well it is GW so i never expect complete balance but i do want a fun experience and while 5th did address the min/max las/plas squads for marines the most important factor was it was enjoyable to play. not something i can say i cared for in late 7th formation spam or current 8th stratagem spam.
Eh, stratagems are fine in concept. When the entire game boils down to stratagems, then it's not.
I played 2nd ed at school and jumped back in at 5th. Skipped 6 & 7th on the gaming side, but came back to that in 8th.I know times change, but I do miss a lot of the weirdness of 2nd Edition. Also, I have an RT era book for Orks, which included such things as rolling your own Painboy bionics and Custom weapons. Despite the models growing exponentially, something has been lost from the early days which makes the universe seem smaller somehow. But, I will say Blackstone fortress is a really good example of exploring these grey areas of the Imperium, which I approve of.
I really liked the streamlined 5th ed rules for playing though. Liked templates, hated the glancing hit locking of vehicles and the wound allocation shenanigans.
The models these days are fabulous and I do top up my multi edition Ork and Eldar armies. I also have an SM force, but Primaris killed my interest in them stone dead. I have an entire company and couldn't face painting that many marines again.
I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.
IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
.what edition you prefer and why 5th. It had a lot of issues with codex creep and objective scoring but games were paced well enough that you often felt you were losing as much if not more due to your choices over multiple turns than your dice, you often wanted to go second (cruddace/creep not withstanding), and every factiion had a shot at being average or better during its run.
Vehicles got stuck between being made cheaper due to vulnerability (end of 4e) and being made tougher without the price going back up (5th onwards, first marines and the memorably guard and their chimeras)
.how does your local gaming group feel about playing/supporting the older editions / .what rules do you use, including house rules The local group started drifting away in 6th, all but gone in 7th and 8e just didn't bring them back. Games were played, but they often became a battle of the dice buckets and endless layers of bonuses and rerolls and were just discouraging.
We play by the book (with the extended maelstrom rules) but unless the new edition is a huge turnaround I suspect there is a better chance of getting games with my 5e complete re-write project than with 9e (also the models are just far too expensive for people to get back into with an updated army)
.post your battle reports. / .post your retro armies. I still have an old school/notebook of 5e army lists showing change through the edition from a DH list with supporting sisters, to sisters/inquisition/stormtroopers, through to mech sisters later in the edition. Plus a bunch of chaos tournament lists and mixed fun lists.
A few highlights included the five battlewagon ork lists, a 1000pt 3e glass cannon dark eldar list with 10 lances and 9 disintegrators (among other things), a 1500pt nid list with the parasite leading gargoyles, 3 squads of infiltrating genestealers, two trygons, and ten ravagers that was designed to hit the opposing line all at the same time, and a WH list with Karamazov leading 9 penitent engines and horde of zealots.
My mid edition 'competitive' WH list at 1850 was :
Canoness, melta celestians, immolator
3x melta celestians, immolators
4x flamer/heavy flamer battle sisters, repressor
3x exorcists
-pretty much what you'd expect to see out of an imperial army around 2009-2010. Three heavy slots, lots of vehicles, melta, templates, and troops choices, few invulnerables, and fewer rerolls. I regret never having secured a fourth repressor to field this wysiwyg.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
I had a moment like that in a game of killteam recently - I had no idea that you can fight thru solid walls. I thought my leader was safe inside of a shipping container out of (real movement) charge range but nope, mr marine with a powerfist can just get within an inch by hugging the outer wall of the container. We just on the spot added a -1 to hit penalty for both combatants to simulate having to chop thru metal to get at the other guy.
And lore wise, I can totally conceptualize a marine/clawnob tearing chunks from a wall to get to the dude on the other side. I just didn't consider that the rules DON'T forbid it and assumed that LOS blocking/solid terrain would just not allow melee combat.
Elbows wrote: Termagants should be small, ineffective but cheap swarm creatures. However, through stratagems and increasingly deadly wargear, somehow Termagants in 8th edition are firing six shots per model with a gun equivalent to a bolter, occasionally with additional boons from psychic powers...it feels super gamey and has very little connection with what a Termagant should represent in the 40K universe. We saw the same thing all edition with Tzangors being better than actual Thousand Sons Space Marines, Conscripts orginally being better than Guard, Cultists better than Chaos Space Marines, etc.
In all fairness, I experienced that in 5th with vanilla Marines - you were encouraged to take Scouts, not Tacticals, so you had more points for everything else - which completely did not gel with Tacticals being the backbone of the Marine army, and Scouts as a usually reserve or vanguard force.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Marines and the general MEQ profile, unless you start going up to the Primaris level, people just don't want to take the more expensive troops option unless it's more than basic bodies. Which is a shame, because I love the basic power armoured Marine as my army's core instead of Scouts.
4th ed is a great game with clean rules and a huge breadth of codex options.
2nd is very messy, but also has the most visceral imagery in the rules, and is a more intimate sort of battle. I still get 2nd ed games from time to time.
5th Ed turned it into more of a vehicle game, high AP weapons started ballooning, invulns started ballooning, flavor-options began dropping from codexes, TLOS is dumb, etc.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.
IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
The problem with the 4th ed vehicle damage rules was directly related to skimmers. they could only every be glanced even if they did not move, the only way to destroy them outright (not through cumulative damage)was a glance 6 if they moved over 6" (otherwise they just "landed". combine that with the vehicle upgrades for eldar and to a lesser extent tau made them nearly impossible to kill from shooting. and in CC you always need 6+ to even hit them no matter how far they moved. the 5th ed damage table and the removal of the skimmer rule in 5th fixed that problem. but GW threw the baby out with the bathwater and removed the movement penalties along with it. combine the 2 and it is much better. both from a game mechanic standpoint as well as an immersion or aesthetic standpoint. that's why our group did it.
Elbows wrote:Sure, it's not "new", but far more prevalent and obvious now. The age old "problem" of "troop tax" is just a failure of GW to reign in force organization - while simultaneously trying to sell you boxes of elite models.
The complain has always been about the "troop" options under performing. this was fixed with certain armies later on, but not all, the troop options for cult mechanicus/skitari in the 7th ed codex are quite good with loads of options.
On the flip side they really solved the problem with Horus Heresy. basic legion troops could specialize if you wanted a huge squad with all bolters you could do that, or up to a 20 man assault squad, or a dedicated fire support tac squad that all carried special weapons.....need to deal with hordes? give them all rotor guns, need some heavy hitting long range anti-infantry/light vehicle killing-volkite culverins, need to make sure that armor is dead give them all melta guns. and so on. heck even the transports counted to fill a troop slot if they were not a dedicated transport. so all the "tax" units were not really a tax because they really do give the force much needed power. and that isn't even getting into the other parts of the FOC or even the legion specific special units like the salamander's pyroclast squads.
TLOS is dumb, etc.
For a second i thought that was TSOLR and i was like hey you leave Frep and Kren outta this!
Unit1126PLL wrote: I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.
IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar.
Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.
Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.
IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar. Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.
Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.
This is exactly what I am talking about though. Players didn't like it, but it is more immersive if, when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay". That's just not intuitive. Transports may have been deathtraps in 4e, but in general, things like the M113 (my brain's rhino analogue) were deathtraps in real life if you used it as anything other than a battle taxi to-and-from the front line (or fought forces without anti-tank equipment).
It would in fact be safer to run behind your transport in real life (or really, spread out, find cover, and not be anywhere near an armored vehicle) when facing an enemy with a plethora of antitank weapons. The reason forces don't is mobility, which gets to one of my problems with 4th edition: infantry weren't that much slower than vehicles. Mounting up in a transport should be risky: "do I risk losing the whole squad to the transport going up, but gain the increased mobility? Or do I play it safe, stay low, spread out, but move slowly?"
aphyon wrote: The purpose of this thread is for those of us who are tired of the GW rollercoaster of points and rules changes that make the game something we don't enjoy with "the next edition"
I decided to start this topic as i notice a load of people who really like the skirmish play of RT and second edition (never played it myself but i have some of the books). or those like myself who started in 3rd who think the direction that 9th is going is a bad direction we are not interested in moving into it.
There obviously is a drive for players to want to play the current edition, bit nobody is forcing us to.
Because of that. this thread will lend itself to social or casual play and not the current tournament meta.
Nobody disputes how great GWs model have become. i myself am tempted to pick up some primaris to use in 30K as MKIV maximus armor for my legion for example.
with that in mind feel free to tell us
.what edition you prefer and why
.how does your local gaming group feel about playing/supporting the older editions
.what rules do you use, including house rules
.post your battle reports.
.post your retro armies.
I got my start with dark angels back in mid 3rd ed so i have been playing for 2 decades. my preference is for 5th edition as the logical progression of the game.
6th edition was a death sentence for 40K at our FLGS, it came back a bit in 7th and more in 8th, after seeing the direction that GW is going with 9th i am completely turned off by it.
I find 8th bare bones to be excellent for playing in epic 6mm scale and still do with halving all movement and weapon ranges by half.
With great 3rd party companies like vanguard, onslaught, trolls under the bridge (necrons and some rare guard units) and other 3d printed sellers on ebay there is no shortage of any 40K unit to play with in 6mm scale.
Our FLGS has a small group of veterans who have been playing as long as i have who also prefer 5th and are teaching people to play it.(just did a game last night with 2 players who only knew 8th)
To make 5th even better we took the time to consider all the best rules from all compatible editions (3-7) and put them into 5th with 5th as the core rules. this allows all the players to choose which of the codex editions they want to use to represent their force.
For example our khorne player is using 3.5 my space marines and our blood angels are using 5th. my mechanicus are using 7th.
these are the "house rules" that we pulled from other editions and put into 5th
.rapid fire weapon rules (6th/7th)
.snap fire(6th/7th)
.new weapon profiles(grav etc..)(6th/7th)
.overwatch(6th/7th)
.objective secure-troops choice(6th/7th)
.CCWAP value(6th/7th)
.grenade throwing(6th/7th)
.fearless-no LD checks(3rd)
.3+ reserves(6th/7th)
.no hull points-5th ed glance/pen chart only
.flyer rules(5th/forge world flyer rules)-jump units can assault, -12" range penalty for guns, immobilize result= destroyed
.All AA units can choose to fire skyfire or ground fire
.4th edition vehicle assault rules-to-hit +armor facing= auto/4+/6+=not move/move up to 6"/move over 6"
.6th edition smash for MCs(half attacks rounded up max S 10)
. independent characters can fight separate in CC(counts as separate battle)
.D/macro weapons 5th=auto pen/wound, no cover or armor- invul only/ 1 damage against MCs/instant death non-MCs/ +1 on vehicle damage chart
.vehicle squads act as talons, can break and act independent but not reform during game.(5th)
.psyker powers used when in the proper phase(shooting attacks in shooting phase, melee in CC etc..) on lD check/selecting the known powers available at the start of the game as per 5th ed rules-includes all 7th edition disciplines.
.snipers-strength 3 always hits on 2+/wounds on 4+/rending on 6+ (3rd/4th)
.defensive weapons on vehicles-S5 or less do not count as heavy weapons if the vehicle moves at combat speed (and is not stunned/shaken)-4th
So what's your favorite version of 40K and how do you play it?
(I will be posting pics after the next game.)
That's uh, pretty heavily houseruled. I don't know if I'd call it any edition anymore!
Anyway, my favorite rose-tinted glasses edition was probably 5th. 6th introduced a lot of things that I think were bad: hull points, giant monstrous creatures [Riptide, Wraithknight], Super Heavies in regular games [Escalation], Allied Detachments, noninfantry nontroops being able to score period, and I want to say Flyers as well but don't quote me on that.
7th doubled down on what was bad from 6th and also made it worse, with formations and even more really big things and the whole deal with psychic powers.
That also said, until the SM Supplements were rolled out, I would definitely say that 8th was the best edition. It had something I didn't really feel was on point with any of the past editions I played, which is more important than any level of disgruntlement about simulationism and everything having hitpoints: balance, and active attempts at balance. Then they f**ked it up with the Space Marine supplements and even more free rules.
There's a lot of things I don't like about 8th:
Subfaction rules should never have happened. There should never have been chapter tactics and regimental doctrines. Your force doesn't need rules to show off it's individuality, especially when said rules narrow your individuality down to one of 6 chapters/regiments/etc.
Allies still need to go, and were the primary definer of the haves and the have-nots of pre supplement's 8th. You either had a loyal 32/disloyal 17, or you didn't.
I've actually generally warmed up to super heavies being okay because they seem reasonably balanced right now, and the difference between a Riptide and a Wraithknight and a Imperial Knight is a "where do you draw the line?" question. That said, I think the all-super-heavy faction of Imperial Knights needs to be deleted and rolled-into Adeptus Mechanicus as super-heavy choices or something and similar for Chaos Knights [or maybe fleshed out with infantry troops and scouts and the likes]. It's a list archetype that on it's own is largely nonviable, doesn't really play the same game, and exists almost solely to ally with other Imperial or Chaos factions to bring in yet another super-heavy choice.
One thing I have never seen in 40k is a good morale mechanic. It just hasn't been. The previous edition's version of 2d6 under LD or fall back was basically inconsequential, and the current editions is either inconsequential or so punishing to the point where forces that are designed to be hurt by it have methods to trivialize it to maintain their integrity. The fundamental problem here is playability and what players desire; people don't want their toy soldiers to run away or be scared or pinned or whatever. It's easier to take a unit being destroyed than it is it being present on the board but useless. I think a good morale system can be made [for example, I think Flames of War morale works for Flames of War], but it can't just be stapled onto 40k without systematic changes; I increasingly think that we should just do away with morale in 40k entirely.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.
IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar.
Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.
Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.
This is exactly what I am talking about though. Players didn't like it, but it is more immersive if, when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay". That's just not intuitive. Transports may have been deathtraps in 4e, but in general, things like the M113 (my brain's rhino analogue) were deathtraps in real life if you used it as anything other than a battle taxi to-and-from the front line (or fought forces without anti-tank equipment).
It would in fact be safer to run behind your transport in real life (or really, spread out, find cover, and not be anywhere near an armored vehicle) when facing an enemy with a plethora of antitank weapons. The reason forces don't is mobility, which gets to one of my problems with 4th edition: infantry weren't that much slower than vehicles. Mounting up in a transport should be risky: "do I risk losing the whole squad to the transport going up, but gain the increased mobility? Or do I play it safe, stay low, spread out, but move slowly?"
Yeah, this. As far as I know, in the real world, the moment a transport begins taking serious fire everybody jumps out, finds cover and begins to return fire. And if a transport blows up with everyone in it. . . the folks inside are either dead or very preoccupied with extracting themselves and pulling squad-mates out of the burning wreckage.
Also, iirc, in 4th you could still hop out of a transport at the end of its move, so you had a nice choice available. In a transport you risked casualties and pinning from effective AT fire, but you could strike farther forward in the next turn. Or you could dismount and use the transport for LOS cover, but you moved more slowly.
The manipulation of rules and stratagems to boost units that should be background NPCs...completely ruined the "feel" of the game for me. Eldar didn't get away with it either, with Guardians being arguably better than almost all of the aspect warriors - again due to a handful of stratagems, and spells (and the inexplicable bump to BS/WS 3+...but that's another story)..
well, you get your wish with 8th. Never again will you have to see a "background NPC" unit on the board...and good news, Guardians are fethed more than any other unit in the entire game with their default unit sizes of 6 for storm guardians and 11 for guardians with gun platforms!
when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".
They also are not astartes in power armor
That's uh, pretty heavily houseruled. I don't know if I'd call it any edition anymore!
how exactly? we are using 5th ed as the core meaning 5th ed rules take precedent over any thing we have not addressed here. this allows all compatible editions codexes to work together.in 5th. we just took the best rules for certain things out of the other editions and shoehorned them into the 5th rules set.
Your force doesn't need rules to show off it's individuality,
That's actually at the core of non-tournament play, you want those rules to make it an immersive game for the universe. it is something that makes marines something other than vanilla ultra-marines are a guard regiment something other than cadians wearing different armor.
I've actually generally warmed up to super heavies being okay because they seem reasonably balanced right now,
They were more balanced in 5th, 6th/7th and the changes to D weapons is where they got silly. in 5th i watched a squad of rough riders take out a bane blade in a single charge with melta bombs with the super heavy damage chart+structure point system in a normal 2k game.
One thing I have never seen in 40k is a good morale mechanic. It just hasn't been. The previous edition's version of 2d6 under LD or fall back was basically inconsequential
Completely disagree, for 40K mechanics this is still the best and simple system to use and it had direct consequences in the game. especially when units could run right off the table or be broken from sweeping advance.
when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".
They also are not astartes in power armor
Neither are most people in 40k, and the ones that are don't ride in tanks powered by modern-day fuels that explode in a way we can understand. Massive fireballs can, and do, kill space marines in the fluff.
Furthermore, the way most of those explosions worked permitted you your armor save (so wearing power armor did help you more than wearing flak armor). The only one that didn't AFAIK was Ordnance Penetrating Hits, and that means the ordnance shell penetrated the vehicle and detonated among the passengers. I can't think of an Ordnance weapon in those editions with an AP greater than 3, so the marines not in the transport but in the same formation would also have been vaporized in the explosion of the shell by itself, not to mention the tank around them.
when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".
They also are not astartes in power armor
Neither are most people in 40k, and the ones that are don't ride in tanks powered by modern-day fuels that explode in a way we can understand. Massive fireballs can, and do, kill space marines in the fluff.
Furthermore, the way most of those explosions worked permitted you your armor save (so wearing power armor did help you more than wearing flak armor). The only one that didn't AFAIK was Ordnance Penetrating Hits, and that means the ordnance shell penetrated the vehicle and detonated among the passengers. I can't think of an Ordnance weapon in those editions with an AP greater than 3, so the marines not in the transport but in the same formation would also have been vaporized in the explosion of the shell by itself, not to mention the tank around them.
That would have been 3rd ed-ordinance pen 6, kills the vehicle and everybody riding in it-no saves allowed.
Lost a deathwing command squad and a land raider that way to a basilisk. pretty much a game winning single shot. the guy still reminds me about that from time to time.
The explodes rules for passengers in 5th is quite reasonable, if you are inside an enclosed vehicle you roll to wound everybody with a S4 hit (so basically you are taking a bolter round) if it is open topped the explosive force is free to expand out instead of being contained so it is only S3, the same as the blast effect if you are nearby when a vehicle explodes. armor saves are still allowed..
Even though the rhino chassi and predators are both based of the well known m113 APC (an iconic vehicle in use by most militaries of the world when 40K was being designed) it is a far cry from the survivability to passengers afforded by modern armored vehicles like MREPS.
I was just starting to learn the game at the end of 2nd Ed. when 3rd Ed. dropped. I liked the streamlining overall despite the loss of some character and felt like 4th was a natural progression, incorporating some of 3.5's rules changes. Still, it felt like some things needed work so I very eagerly awaited 5th Ed.
I was very disappointed.
It's not that 5th was bad per se; it was that it seemed GW didn't recognize many issues with its own game. Some things improved for sure, while other things got notably worse. GW was already infamous for swinging the pendulum too far, and had done it again, notably with their vehicle damage charts. In 4th (unless you were a skimmer) vehicles were total death traps. In 5th vehicles became too resilient. My final straw was when GW proclaimed that 5th's new wound allocation method wasn't just better, but it was FASTER than it was in 4th Ed.
You can easily argue there was abuse in 5th's wound allocation system, but one could at least discuss the merit as to whether or not it was better at simulating casualties. But faster? FASTER? Faster than simply having the defender remove casualties?? I realized GW was simply lying to its fans, and that waiting around for GW to fix game mechanics was an exercise in utter futilty.
GW continues to either not recognize game issues or just prefers to move rules laterally for the sake of changing the game and forcing players to buy into the new paradigm. I understand that to some degree; it's a business and it needs to generate revenue. But the middle of 5th is where I got off the rollercoaster. Luckily I play with a closeknit group of friends, so I am not constrained by needing to adapt to the public. Because of this we've have created our own house rules, picking what we like and discarding the rest from subsequent editions.
Our rule set is probably closest to 5th Ed. with some important revisions, including a Reaction Phase for the defender. We've given a facelift to the codices we use and continue to tweak balance and allow for some unique additions in case somebody has an idea for a unit or two. It's an ongoing process, because like any game some odd situation may arise that needs addressing. The nice thing is that we can address it and modify our rules accordingly.
Indeed. the new models look fantastic no matter which edition you use them in. when i first saw the primaris i thought they looked like MKIV maximus suits.
amanita
Every time GW makes a change to an edition or a rule they always say it is BESTEST EVER! even when it is a pendulum swing.
They kinda have to do that to sell or justify the changes.
You mention the claim of making casualty removal faster, they are making the same claim with 9th edition. that it will be faster......even though they have expanded it to have 7 different phases compared to a simple 3 phases in 3rd-5th, or adding the convoluted scoring system that goes up to 100 + extra win points for having a painted army. when the old system of "he who holds the most objectives at the end of the game wins" or secondary win condition of "wipe out your opponent", (or victory/kill points if you just want to brawl) was a much simpler and better system that encouraged play to the end of the game as the odds of a forgone conclusion at the end of turn 2 was unlikely. like it has become in 8th.
6th and 7th were like 5th, but a convoluted mess. 4th was cool but had some wonky unintuitive stuff. 8th is a clusterfeth of rerolls and CP spam... plus the introduction of Primaris made it extra sour.
I started when 5th edition just got released. Played a couple games and enjoyed it immensely. Friends quickly moved onto other games so that ended fast. Came back for 8th edition, I did like 8th edition but I'm just not a fan of detachments and stratagems. it was just more confusing to me..
Recently I find myself playing 5th edition again. Friend of mine started in 4th edition, so I found myself reading 4th edition and now I'm going to play 4th edition.
I'm not sure if everyone will agree, but I really liked the terrain rules in 4th. Having to roll a D6 to cross terrain got me excited, in the games of 8th edition I played, everyone just moved around terrain nor took advantage of using terrain.
yeah having terrain actually affect game play really changes the feel of the game. dangerous and difficult terrain or even mysterious terrain coupled with terrain providing unique cover affects are a positive experience. It adds an entire new element of tactical play beyond rather something blocks LOS or not.
Grensche-
I see you are my neck of the woods so to speak, we play down at the matrix in tacoma, once the stupid lockdown is over and we get back to normal hours, i run late-night gaming on saturdays. we have been having some great games of 5th.
Sadly this saturday falls on the 4th so the store is going to close early, we loose another day of gaming but at least it isn't for 2+ months this time.
Honestly, I was liking 8E a lot last summer, the meta had relatively stabilized, we didn't have anything too super ridiculous (relatively) and most of the particularly egregious builds had been properly nerfed, and then the SM supplements came out
Aside from that, 5E is probably my favorite edition. It's got some pretty monstrous flaws that are hard to overlook (wound allocation, KP's, vehicle defensive weapons limited to S4, vehicle rules that enable almost any hit to silence an MBT but that leave a rhino fully capable of its primary role most of the time, *everything* being 4+ cover, definitely some codex issues, etc), but it's probably the best overall, 5th's biggest problems were in the Codex area in terms of balance problems. 6E and 7E were by far my worst experiences with this hobby. 3E/4E never really nailed themselves down and each had some major fundamental core rules issues (e.g. don't try and run any non-skimmer transport in 4E, they're pointless deathtraps), but wayyyyyy better than 6E/7E.
I really liked 5th. It was IMO the best refinement of the 3rd edition ruleset, which allowed for fun and fast-paced games without overwhelming you with complication.
8th felt like it was trying to get back to this after two failed editions that just piled on bloat, but I think it ultimately failed, and it looks like 9th edition is going to be a refinement of the failed 8th edition rather than the conceptual rewrite that's really needed,
Eventually I got frustrated and realized that there would probably never be an edition of 40K that was really very good rules-wise, and I started writing my own rules, as I imagine a lot of people do. I started to get really into it and then realized I enjoyed the challenge of making a fun balanced wargaming ruleset than I did playing 40K. I haven't played a game of 40k in months. :(
3E was my #1, the games were more of a relatable size, special characters were nice, but not overbearing...
Still have my original list:
HQ Captain, with 4 Guardsmen
2 Anti Tank Weapon Squads with Lascannons
2 Fire Support Weapon Squads with Autocannons
Sentinel Squadron with Mulltilasers
HQ 4 Commissars
Troops
Lieutenant with 4 Guardsmen
Infantry Squad with Heavy Bolter
Infantry Squad with Heavy Bolter
Troops
Lieutenant with 4 Guardsmen
Infantry Squad with Heavy Bolter
Infantry Squad with Heavy Bolter
Troops
Armoured Fist Squad
Chimera with Multilaser and Heavy Bolter
Troops
Armoured Fist Squad
Chimera with Multilaser and Heavy Bolter
Elites
Stormtroopers
Elites
Stormtroopers
Elites
Veterans with Officer
Heavy Support
Vanquisher
Heavy Support
Griffon
Heavy Support
Griffon
The armies back then seemed far more thematic (especially in the first half of 3E), even if you played competitively, no Flyers, Aura Deathballs, etc...
I got started back in Rogue Trader. My heart has always been there. Most editions have cool stuff in their own way. I liked 2nd for how it established hard lists and the codex system. I loved 3rd for how it thematically changed 4k from campy sci-fi to grim-dark sci-fi. Each iteration has had something to contribute...mostly. The group I started with had an amazing GM. He would build the craziest terrain that would blow my mind. Best game ever, our RT sent us on a mission that wound up being to save the body of Rogal Dorn (who was in this mega stasis machine). We managed to disrupt the power but that caused some kind of warp-instability... and that's when stuff got weird. GM flipped on the black-lights and a fog machine out ofdry ice. Map had been painted with all kinds of invisible stuff. Chaos marines started pouring out of a rift and we barely escaped with our lives (none of the red-shirts survived). I've tried to be as good of a GM as he was after he passed away. I love sharing this hobby and setting to younger kids. But to be honest, I'm done with GW. If they make a better plastic Lion El'Johnson than Forge World's I'd have that. Maybe a sweet one off of something. Otherwise I'd rather play RT or Battletech. 40k with alternating activations (move and shoot) with RT or 2nd ed rules (where facing mattered more) is pretty good by the way. No matter what, I love my 40k bros and sisters. Do/play whatever gives you the most fun for your time.
P.S. Yeah Battlefleet Gothic was awesome but I was the only one in my area who bought into it and everyone just used my minis.
I liked 1st edition, for a couple of reasons, firstly there was also 1st edition Space Marine around, so nay "big" game could easily use that, secondly because of the scale of the thing.
usual 40k game I had at the time would be an agreed point value and a rough scenario "leopard, you will be assaulting a building to rescue a hostage or recover a stolen artefact, I will be trying to stop you". the game then typically 8-12 models on each side in units of maybe 3-4 as small fire teams - playing on maps 'borrowed' from something like Judge Dread.
occasionally we had 'outdoor' games, with maybe 20 or so models and possibly a vehicle, I think the largest was a patrol of four dreadnaughts being ambushed by infantry.
the game had a lot of detail, but it worked very well as what was really a squad based game, bogged down way too fast if you tried to scale it up, a small platoon is as big as its worth even thinking about going and you needed a lot of dense terrain to be able to hide specific models
I also liked the somewhat free-form background, marines then being just basically better trained humans with better equipment, not 8' super weebles as later, the 1st edition orks were also a hell of a lot more interesting than the super fungus of later editions, and were equally a lot of fun to actually use
reports of re-enactments of 'zulu' are overstated, I never had more than about 50 orks and only one of the beautiful battlewagons
the whole game seemed aimed at being a generic system, with a background attached but in a universe large enough to basically run with it, indeed the system was used a few times to resolve ground combat from Traveller games
the more recent editions have seemed bland as a result, though part of that is required to allow the game to get larger, but I do wish GW would decide what 'scale' game they want.
in a game with baneblades and knights for example, does it really matter what sort of pistol an IG sergeant has?
they sort of have the right idea with Kill Team (which to be honest I don't like the execution of, but like the scale of) at the bottom and Apoc (which I do like) at the top end but 40k needs to decide if its a platoon or company scale game and just run with it - or even have two rule sets, use points for platoon scale with all the options and maybe power level with 'fixed' profiles for the company scale game.
I do like a lot of the background development, yes its gotten silly, its started out even sillier, but what its got it depth - any of the come along lately games like GoA may have a background but there is no depth to it, ho history, 40k has and feels like its evolved - same with Warhammer before they blew it up for %REASONS%, it just doesn't feel scripted and I like that, there is still space for you to carve out your own elements.
This is the results of our hybrid 5th ed game tonight at 2k points.
I was expecting to fight necrons, but that group canceled at the last minute so i was facing bugs instead.
The tyranids-using 6th ed codex
MY opponent decided to go monster heavy this time-
HQ 1&2 warrior primes
Troops
1&2- X3 warriors
Elite
hive guard X2
Fast
hive crone
Heavy
1&2 X2 tyrano fexes
3-trygon prime
Spoiler:
My list-salamanders successors (air cav themed army-they do not use ground vehicles other than skimmers and dreadnoughts))
HQ master of the forge W/X4 servitors
Troop
1-scouts in land speeder storm
2 ironclad dreadnought talon (badab war supplement)
Fast
1.storm hawk
2.storm eagle
3. X10 assault marines
Allied detachment
cult mechanicus (7th ed)
HQ .tech priest dominus
Troop
.cataphron breachers X4 (using gate of antares minis because they look cool, and cost half as much as the GW stuff)
Spoiler:
Since we did this on the fly we just decided on a fast and dirty 12" delpoyment kill them all battle...but i mean seriously why would tyranids care about random objectives when their goal is just to eat everything anyway.
this was the table
Spoiler:
He won the roll for setup so i was made to deploy first, i then won the roll for turn 1 and he failed to seize.
i had the planes in reserve (required) the scouts outflanking and the MOTF riding the storm eagle.
He placed the trygon and the krone in reserve
Turn 1 was pretty lackluster as both our shooting was very ineffective.
with us just doing a couple wounds to each others troops
Spoiler:
Turn 2
From here on in the game was pretty straightforward. i decided to play aggressive pushing all my units up. i got the scouts and storm hawk in the scouts did little to the only thing in range (one of the tyranofexes) and the interceptor plinked at one of the warrior squads. his turn saw the krone and the trygon both come in. the krone managed to rip the autocannon off the plane thanks to the haywire effect of his "missiles" but fortunately for me the trygon scattered 11" away. the scouts had to dismount as return fire immobilised and then ripped the heavy flamer off their transport.
The right side of the map turned into it's own private battle between the mechanicus unit and one of the warrior units.
Spoiler:
Turn 3 went really well for me. i managed to tie up and kill most of the warriors on the left flank thanks to the scouts and ironclad getting them into assault. my jump infantry made short work of the krone. i lost most of the scouts, a dreadnought got immobilised while the war of attrition continued on the right flank.
Spoiler:
I got super lucky on turn 3 because his trygon while successfully making the charge failed to hurt the ironclad even though he hit him 7 times....an amazing roll of 1s & 2s for armor pen rolls.
this part of the battle went on to turn 6 where the trygon finally prevailed . it helped my assault sarge bonked him a couple times with a thunder hammer., got all the warriors though so it wasn't a complete loss.
Spoiler:
The machinegod blessed his servants on the right flank with a narrow victory (even though i totally forgot to do my canticles) at this point the storm hawk really wasn't adding much to the game as he was out of position after trying to help the mechanicus unit out (and failing) the storm eagle spent goth turn 3&4 putting hurt onto the right most tyranofex.
Spoiler:
I managed to get the second ironclad into his hive guard and finish them off at the end of turn 4.
Thus by turn 5 i had hurt the one tyranofex enough to finish him off in CC with the ironclad.
the game went all the way to 7
At this point he was down to 2 big bugs left on the table. managing to immobilise my last ironclad.
At game end i was down to 4 functional units, 3 immobilised units that were out of the fight. to his 2 big bugs. a narrow victory for the emperors finest.
Spoiler:
the entire game lasted maybe 2 hours. i am usually not that aggressive but i decided my assault squad needed some love so i made up this as one alternate list while maintaining my army theme.
Hopefully next week i will bash some shiny necrons into parts.
flames of war transfers, i wanted something other than the common knights hospitaller "iron cross" used by the black templar so i used the balkenkreuz based on the order of the teutonic knights (13h century) and later adopted by the german imperial army in 1916 through the end of WWII. it's a bit of humor since they are salamanders......and german. i'm sure you can do the math.
Firstly, Ktulhut - beautiful work on those paintjobs. Particularly love the guard - you've brought "Dawn Of War - Winter Assault" to life!
So, my impressions - RT was basically unplayable without a GM, so much was randomised it was next to impossible to build an army and the book was all over the place in terms of organisation. It felt like they'd made a load of notes for a really cool game to test... and then published it without actually trying it out. WD army lists and the Battle Manual brought us to something that modern players would recognise, and the Vehicle Manual.. was a neat idea in theory, but didn't really work in practice (it involved an acetate grid placed over a vehicle profile, kind of confusing). RT background still feels cool though, as others have described, it was the "wild west" as so much wasn't codified yet - the Horus Heresy was only hinted at, for example. Basically RT was an RPG sold as a wargame, that's the best way I can describe it.
2nd ed cleaned everything up and brought most of the fluff and mechanics we know today, in glorious technicolour with Goblin Green bases, and played pretty well, if a bit clunky by today's standards.
3-7 I was out chasing girls and then pretending to be a grown up, tried 8th and it felt.. weird. Like half a game. The morale rules in particular just didn't feel right. Admittedly, we were using only the core rules, no CPs or stratgems or anything. We were both excited to try 9th, but until the Leicester lockdown lifts that's not going to be happening still, it looks good.
I'd give a shout out to Epic 2nd ed being their best ruleset, I always loved that game and still do. I believe Apocalypse is basically Epic 3rd ed in a different box, so would be well up for trying that out.
No long winded explanation this time. i was assisting the new player on getting down all the rules for his units, since we had limited time due to pandemic restrictions this was the only game we could get in.
The chaos player wanted to try out a land raider so i let him borrow mine as a proxy
After the game he managed to pick up a used one for cheap, along with a pristine defiler kit at a discount.
The start
The finish
The crone is still there we had to pull him off for a little emergency repair. khorne won the day (well blood was spilled so they auto win no matter the outcome ) even though his terminators and oblits got on the wrong side of the flyrant. the triple shot gun on the gaunts also did some good work.
Fluid_Fox wrote: Early 5th edition for me was hands down the best. Not perfect, but closer than anything before it.
Every edition had broken bits. The question when choosing a favorite edition is picking the one where the rough spots don’t bother you as much as the things they got right.
For example, I disliked 5th's wound allocation. If not for that, It would be higher on my list of editions. But it just felt game-y and exploitable, so tainted the plusses that 5th had over the other editions.
No long winded explanation this time. i was assisting the new player on getting down all the rules for his units, since we had limited time due to pandemic restrictions this was the only game we could get in.
The chaos player wanted to try out a land raider so i let him borrow mine as a proxy
After the game he managed to pick up a used one for cheap, along with a pristine defiler kit at a discount.
The start
The finish
The crone is still there we had to pull him off for a little emergency repair. khorne won the day (well blood was spilled so they auto win no matter the outcome ) even though his terminators and oblits got on the wrong side of the flyrant. the triple shot gun on the gaunts also did some good work.
If he's going to run that Chaos codex he needs some Bloodthirdters.
he IS running a bloodthirster. note the army list. he is still acquiring many of the models so we proxy from time to time. he just got the defiler kit for example.
aphyon wrote:he IS running a bloodthirster. note the army list. he is still acquiring many of the models so we proxy from time to time. he just got the defiler kit for example.
Holy half asleep hell, I meant to post Bloodletters. In the 3.5 codex they were Incubi on speed.
I have more of an issue with the Deathwing land raider in a chaos force......yes, I know I'm asking for it.
I played 3rd and 4th, edition with fond memories, skipped 5th and 6th edition while playing FOW exclusively, and came back halfway through 7th with the Wraith Host battle box. I really enjoyed 8th edition, but the bloat got a little out of hand. Even though 9th looks to be primaris-fest, I'm still building a Deathwing army right now with terminators, dreads and a crusader.
I have a slightly different perspective compared to some here as I'm returning to 40k after about 25 years, so I'm limited to 1st and 2nd edition rules (mostly 1st). I'm currently going through repairing and repainting those of my old miniatures that I have found while doing some clearing out.
For me, the 1st edition rules will always hold greatest appeal to me. It was part miniatures wargame, part RPG - just enough lore to make things interesting, but so much flexibility to come up with your own characters, armies, missions. We originally played skirmish games with a few figures, often metal orks versus plastic space marines or some of the Rogue Trader character miniatures available.
As the army lists began to come out, the scale of battles got much bigger (as did the expense of the hobby!) and while still fun to play, the richness of the worlds we battled in started to get lost and games descended into big Army A vs big Army B in a fight to the death. 2nd edition signalled the end of 40k for most of my friends. Those who wanted bigger battles had switched to Adeptus Titanicus / Epic, and those who wanted RT-like skirmish games went over to fantasy or historical miniatures (Space Hulk and Dark Future were also very popular).
aphyon wrote:he IS running a bloodthirster. note the army list. he is still acquiring many of the models so we proxy from time to time. he just got the defiler kit for example.
Holy half asleep hell, I meant to post Bloodletters. In the 3.5 codex they were Incubi on speed.
Oh we will get around to that, one piece of chaos candy at a time But yeah power swords with a 3+/5+ save and a marine like stat line
bullyboy wrote:I have more of an issue with the Deathwing land raider in a chaos force......yes, I know I'm asking for it.
I played 3rd and 4th, edition with fond memories, skipped 5th and 6th edition while playing FOW exclusively, and came back halfway through 7th with the Wraith Host battle box. I really enjoyed 8th edition, but the bloat got a little out of hand. Even though 9th looks to be primaris-fest, I'm still building a Deathwing army right now with terminators, dreads and a crusader.
yeah i knew there would be jokes about that, but it was the only land raider i had handy. but he has his own now so expect to see a spiky one in future battles.
I agree that is true deathwing, i am still a fan of the 3rd ed mini dex that created the pure lists for the 1st and 2nd companies.
^Chaos 3.5 for the win, basically every time. Imagine a world where you could run your mixed Chaos army using one 25$ book instead of two or more 40$ ones.
Yep it is still the gold standard for chaos codexes in a casual play environment. so full of lore based rules and thematic play.
the other great incarnations of codexes are spread across multiple editions. my friend who is a guard player likes the 5th edition for them best but misses the trait options of the previous codex like close order drill. i think the ork codex between 4th and 5th is best with things like the ramshackle table for trucks, the quirks of the shokk attack gun and so on, even though some of the new models would be very cool in that edition like the new vehicles/buggies. i am also a huge fan of the 5th ed codexes for blood angels and space wolves. but at the same time i still love my 3rd ed dark angels mini dex or the armageddon mini dex for black templar.
aphyon wrote: Yep it is still the gold standard for chaos codexes in a casual play environment. so full of lore based rules and thematic play.
the other great incarnations of codexes are spread across multiple editions. my friend who is a guard player likes the 5th edition for them best but misses the trait options of the previous codex like close order drill. i think the ork codex between 4th and 5th is best with things like the ramshackle table for trucks, the quirks of the shokk attack gun and so on, even though some of the new models would be very cool in that edition like the new vehicles/buggies. i am also a huge fan of the 5th ed codexes for blood angels and space wolves. but at the same time i still love my 3rd ed dark angels mini dex or the armageddon mini dex for black templar.
Imo some of the best Necron "lore" is from their 4th ed Vehicle Design Rules. One possible upgrade was a sepulchure that housed some lovecraftian horror. Another upgrade shrouded the vehicle in impenetrable darkness. Super cool stuff.
Insectum7 wrote:^Chaos 3.5 for the win, basically every time. Imagine a world where you could run your mixed Chaos army using one 25$ book instead of two or more 40$ ones.
aphyon wrote:Yep it is still the gold standard for chaos codexes in a casual play environment. so full of lore based rules and thematic play.
the other great incarnations of codexes are spread across multiple editions. my friend who is a guard player likes the 5th edition for them best but misses the trait options of the previous codex like close order drill. i think the ork codex between 4th and 5th is best with things like the ramshackle table for trucks, the quirks of the shokk attack gun and so on, even though some of the new models would be very cool in that edition like the new vehicles/buggies. i am also a huge fan of the 5th ed codexes for blood angels and space wolves. but at the same time i still love my 3rd ed dark angels mini dex or the armageddon mini dex for black templar.
It was the most imbalanced and exploitable codex in an edition that included Blood Angels, Black Templars, and Gav Thorpe's Eldar books. That should speak volumes.
Just Tony wrote: It was the most imbalanced and exploitable codex in an edition that included Blood Angels, Black Templars, and Gav Thorpe's Eldar books. That should speak volumes.
One of the problems with 40k is that the more options for fun and fluffy lists you give people, the more room you have for people who want to break min/max the system have to do so.
Trading FA slots for HS ones lets you make fluffy seige lists. And also spam more of the broken stuff.
40k has always been broken. Some editions/codexes worse then others. But it has also been fine when people know what level of game they want to play and bring lists of appropriately close power. Sometimes that mean the person playing the broken codex eases back a little, while the person playing the bottom tier army has to tighten it up a bit.
If your goal is to crush your emeny, see him diven before you, and listen to some lamentations, then you get pidgin holed into taking only the best stuff, and working the angles to get the most power out of your list as you can. Which might not fluffy. And some armies just don’t have the tools to play at that level.
For the casual player, fluff is an important part of their lists. They choose units becasue of the look and feel, how they fit into the lore or the structure of the army. For them, books like the 3.5 chaos codex are gold. That was a book that let you play your army the way you wanted it.
Even if it was a little broken (which helps with the nostalgia)
Any tournament/powergamer can take any codex GW ever made in any edition and break it within about 30 minutes. 40K has never been a balanced game and never will be, in fact it cannot be now. it may have started out as a skirmish battle system for an RPG in rogue trader where you literally needed a game master to keep it straight, however now there are to many factions, to much lore and to many special items.
DUST 1947 can pull off a balanced game with hard counters for everything because there are only 4 factions and among those factions there are only 5 distinct special weapons types that are unique. otherwise everybody has access to much of the same stuff in various combos.
That is why i specified that the 3.5 chaos codex was best for casual play. where we are enjoying the game in the setting it was intended to be in, and not the most broken tourney list we can cobble together.
(in fact this was one of the earlier complaints about GWs game design team by the power gamers-they approached it as a lore based casual game totally missing many of the exploits a power gamer would see right away because that was not the design intention).
The idea of "balance" in 40K often gets boiled down to dice hammer performance for tournament play, in a casual setting that is the opposite of balance.
The most important things in this setting are
1.was the game fun and fit the feel the army has in the lore?
2.did both players have a chance at winning? (aside from appeasing the dice gods)
For this guys berserker army things like using the blessed number of 8, blood rage, destroyer upgrades for khornate vehicles (saw blades and spikes etc for running over the enemy), spikey bits and the like are just as needed for the setting of the game as black templars in righteous indignation advancing on a specific enemy that dares to fire on their squadmates, or tyranid monsters spraying acid blood on the assault troopers that just hit them.
If you put all that into the game system that has intuitive and easy to follow/understand rules like 90% of 5th ed has it is a very enjoyable game as a social activity with a bunch of your friends (or frenemies )
Remember that our group also allows players to use any codex from any edition from 3rd-7th in the confines of the 5th edition core rules. so the perceived imbalance and exploitable nature of the 3.5 chaos codex isn't really all that much of an issue.
Nevelon wrote: One of the problems with 40k is that the more options for fun and fluffy lists you give people, the more room you have for people who want to break min/max the system have to do so.
To be fair plenty of other armies of that era had page after page of options.
The 3.5 book just did a poor job of balancing its content by making things inappropriately costed, powerful, and/or running against the underlying structure of the game. But it'd be a relatively short list of changes to pull it into line - things like 'no, your character can't roll an Ld test to become indestructible', 'all upgrades must be paid for', and just general points, rules, and combo fixes (looking at you dread axe prince).
I think the trouble half the time is that people mix up options for fluff and power boosts. Allowing, for instance, white scars to field a lot of bikes is a fluff option. Giving them freebies on their bikes would be a power boost - and the latter is not required for the former.
aphyon wrote: For this guys berserker army things like using the blessed number of 8, blood rage, destroyer upgrades for khornate vehicles (saw blades and spikes etc for running over the enemy), spikey bits and the like...
This I think being an example. Running berserkers in units of 8 is fluffy. Getting freebies for running in units of 8 has no reason to exist.
Insectum7 wrote:^Chaos 3.5 for the win, basically every time. Imagine a world where you could run your mixed Chaos army using one 25$ book instead of two or more 40$ ones.
aphyon wrote:Yep it is still the gold standard for chaos codexes in a casual play environment. so full of lore based rules and thematic play.
the other great incarnations of codexes are spread across multiple editions. my friend who is a guard player likes the 5th edition for them best but misses the trait options of the previous codex like close order drill. i think the ork codex between 4th and 5th is best with things like the ramshackle table for trucks, the quirks of the shokk attack gun and so on, even though some of the new models would be very cool in that edition like the new vehicles/buggies. i am also a huge fan of the 5th ed codexes for blood angels and space wolves. but at the same time i still love my 3rd ed dark angels mini dex or the armageddon mini dex for black templar.
It was the most imbalanced and exploitable codex in an edition that included Blood Angels, Black Templars, and Gav Thorpe's Eldar books. That should speak volumes.
You could build some crazy things, but you paid through the nose for them. So while armies could look really bizarre I never felt any of them was really OP in terms of points-to-value. Imo Thorpes 3rd Ed BA codex was way worse, and without even half the flavor of Chaos 3.5.
it is not a freebie blood rage is a dice roll to see if the nails overcome them, then they must move towards the nearest enemy unit even if they cannot hurt it but only on a 1 or 2 . it is actually directly fluffy, same as white scars having hit&run with lances, or blood angels specializing jump infantry as troops with reduced deep strike scatter.
All of these lore based rules add to the flavor of the game increasing the fun and immersion.
I understand it "could" be abused. i used to play in tourneys back before i got smart and understood the game for what it was meant to be, i have seen all the WAAC cookie cutter lists-nidzilla, double lash princes, iron warrior heavy support/oblit spam etc...
There is a reason i don't play that way anymore.
Win or loose if both of us are really getting into the epic back and forth of the game then i feel satisfied. i cannot say the same for the direction the game (and the attitude of many players) is heading in now, as this is the entire point of this topic.
aphyon wrote: it is not a freebie blood rage is a dice roll to see if the nails overcome them, then they must move towards the nearest enemy unit even if they cannot hurt it but only on a 1 or 2 . it is actually directly fluffy, same as white scars having hit&run with lances, or blood angels specializing jump infantry as troops with reduced deep strike scatter.
All of these lore based rules add to the flavor of the game increasing the fun and immersion.
Blood frenzy wasn't the freebie - pay points, get bonus.
I meant the free champion you got for having a squad of 8, or the discount alpha legion got on infiltrate, or the free siege specialist ability for the Iron Hands. They are thematic choices but there is no good reason for them to be free - they should either be compulsory with a cost, exclusive with a cost, or optional with a cost.
4e Black Templars did it right, their enhanced access to close combat wargear was paid for with reduced access to ranged units and they still had to pay the going rate for all of their upgrades on top.
5e Blood Angels did it wrong, their thematic units were just arbitrarily better and cheaper than their counterparts in the core book with no counterplay, another +1 marine book for the 5e codex creep.
i disagree, i didn't see where you get a free champion, so he paid full points for the upgrade, the alpha legion thing actually makes sense though, and the 5th ed blood angels dex most certainly did it right thematically.
Again what i am seeing here is your approach from a competitive tournament mindset of -X points for Y benefit- and not from a -these rules are how they would act in the lore- mindset that i approach the game with.
You also seem to assume it is to large of a bonus to overcome, i have had some tough games against my friends 3.5 iron warriors list, but i do win against it even in straight up kill points games. i even took a 3rd ed ravenwing force against him and cleaned his clock.
Also the argument of pay points-get bonuses is something that has been around forever in 40K, 3rd used unit composition, 5th used character unlock/chapter tactics, 8th used auras
Getting a free champion for a squad of X was hardly breaking the bank, and probably in some ways sub optimal for the squad.
All the others, Alpha Legion, Iron Warriors etc. at the very least came at an opportunity cost within the book itself.
This is during the same time period where IG doctrines, Tyranid Biomorphs and 4th Ed Marine Chapter Traits were also a thing.
It was well within acceptable balance, imo.
aphyon wrote: Again what i am seeing here is your approach from a competitive tournament mindset of -X points for Y benefit- and not from a -these rules are how they would act in the lore- mindset that i approach the game with.
No, what i'm saying is that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Night Lords are not suddenly less thematic if they pay for night vision. A squad of 9 thousand sons marines is not suddenly less thematic if they pay for their champion.
There is literally no lore drawback to paying the fair going rate for your rules, only a competitive one.
Insectum7 wrote: This is during the same time period where IG doctrines, Tyranid Biomorphs and 4th Ed Marine Chapter Traits were also a thing.
Not being a guard player I dug it out and had a look. Veteran skills and other bonuses were costed per unit or per model with combination restrictions (i.e. no carapace armour on jungle fighters), unless you were thinking regimental organisations?
(I was going to say that close order drill was an exception, but it actually looks like really poor formatting of the organisation chart...)
Marines double-dipped on payment. Want furious assault? Pay 3 points per model and take a disadvantage. Want tank hunters as well? 3 points per model and kiss a significant block of your unit selection goodbye.
Not being a guard player I dug it out and had a look. Veteran skills and other bonuses were costed per unit or per model with combination restrictions (i.e. no carapace armour on jungle fighters), unless you were thinking regimental organisations?
(I was going to say that close order drill was an exception, but it actually looks like really poor formatting of the organisation chart...)
Marines double-dipped on payment. Want furious assault? Pay 3 points per model and take a disadvantage. Want tank hunters as well? 3 points per model and kiss a significant block of your unit selection goodbye.
Biomorphs all had points.
And the "disadvantage" Trait of Isolationist (or whatever it was called), the hardly-a-disadvantage-Trait?
Maybe there weren't any freebies, but I'd call the Trait system way more abuseable than free sergeants. When people complain about Chaos 3.5, I don't think anybody is even thinking of the free sergeant potential. There were definitely combinations in all of those books which were more competitive, points or not. I ran Elite Devastators with Tank Hunters all edition and they were amazing.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe there weren't any freebies, but I'd call the Trait system way more abuseable than free sergeants. When people complain about Chaos 3.5, I don't think anybody is even thinking of the free sergeant potential. There were definitely combinations in all of those books which were more competitive, points or not. I ran Elite Devastators with Tank Hunters all edition and they were amazing.
Well 3.5 gave you tank hunters on havoks without needing to take a trait/disadvantage... and that's fine, they had to spend points on the upgrade.
I'm not sure why 'all upgrades must be paid for' got picked out of the original list as if it were something controversial.
Hellebore wrote: It wasn't the core rules that I liked so much about 2nd, it was how well the armies represented their factions in the lists.
This is why 6th Edition killed Tau for me. The new Codex just did not represent the Tau technology and way of war at all. Tau was the smart army, they did not have much raw power, but they could make their shots count. They were not particularly fast, but they could be very mobile. After 6th edition, almost all of that was thrown out of the window, Tau became more about brute power by awesome statlines (like Riptide) or gimmicks to increase the amount of dice you could throw. All the old units were dumbed down but hey, they were cheaper, you could get more of them! My favourite Tau units - the tanks - became slow and cumbersome like Leman Russes. Entire 'high tech' feel of the army was gone, it was just another monster mash.
Kind of same thing happened with Tyranids, the army became all about flavour monster of the month. 4th Edition Tyranid Codex had tons of options and it really felt like a highly customizable army. By 7th Edition, it was just the matter of fielding the big monsters. Yawn.
Just Tony wrote: It was the most imbalanced and exploitable codex in an edition that included Blood Angels, Black Templars, and Gav Thorpe's Eldar books. That should speak volumes.
Ok, and? None of what you said in any way contradicts or invalidates what you quoted.
The 3.5 'Dex was fantastic. The 3.5 'Dex was broken.
The 3.5 'Dex (and the accompanying big army box) is what got me back into 40k.
Insectum7 wrote: Maybe there weren't any freebies, but I'd call the Trait system way more abuseable than free sergeants. When people complain about Chaos 3.5, I don't think anybody is even thinking of the free sergeant potential. There were definitely combinations in all of those books which were more competitive, points or not. I ran Elite Devastators with Tank Hunters all edition and they were amazing.
Well 3.5 gave you tank hunters on havoks without needing to take a trait/disadvantage... and that's fine, they had to spend points on the upgrade.
I'm not sure why 'all upgrades must be paid for' got picked out of the original list as if it were something controversial.
I just don't see freebies for running certain flavor options as being automatically problematic. If' Marines got a bonus for running 50% Tacs in their infantry, for example, that's not inherently bad. It just depends on the nature of the bonus. A free sergeant isn't breaking any banks. 7th ed Gladius wasn't crazy because you got a bonus for running a bunch of Tacs etc, it's the nature of the bonus that made it absurd (awesome). Incentives to run armies a particular way is a totally fine practice if the incentives are reasonable.
The problems with the 3.5 'Dex were largely the same problems that the 3.5 Guard 'Dex and 4th Ed Marine 'Dex had, namely that the options to gain X by giving up Y weren't really options.
If you were never going to take Y in the first place, then giving it up to gain more of X (which you were going to take) isn't actually a trade-off.
Oh no! My Iron Warriors have limited Fast Attack, but I get extra Heavy Support? I can't take Sanctioned Psykers and Storm Troopers in my Guard army, but all my troops can Deep Strike for free and get +1I when they're in close formation? I can't take allies in my Marine army*, but get Tank Hunters? How ever will my army survive this great disadvantage???
*Some allies were good, like the Kyoto-Pattern Inquisitorial Fire Team, which I brought to almost every game.
Insectum7 wrote: I just don't see freebies for running certain flavor options as being automatically problematic.
But what does it achieve?
From a competitive standpoint you've undermined your own attempt at points balance by some margin no matter how small, and from a non-competitive standpoint the lore players would have just paid the points.
Insectum7 wrote: I just don't see freebies for running certain flavor options as being automatically problematic.
But what does it achieve?
From a competitive standpoint you've undermined your own attempt at points balance by some margin no matter how small, and from a non-competitive standpoint the lore players would have just paid the points.
It makes lore-based choices slightly more competetive, and therefore more likely to manifest "in the wild", and that, imo, is a good thing.
considering how gw treats Cultists, you can see that their imagined, Lore foccussed, picture of a factions army should look like X you can anyways assume, that balance is a hot commodity.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *Some allies were good, like the Kyoto-Pattern Inquisitorial Fire Team, which I brought to almost every game.
Why 'kyoto' ?
I'm guessing mystics, guns, and potentially a psychic hood / tarot?, back when 95 points for a couple of heavy bolters and a plasma gun would have been considered reasonable. The codex creep on heavy weapons was impressive in 5th when you consider that the same three servitors in the GK book cost 40 points...
Insectum7 wrote: It makes lore-based choices slightly more competetive, and therefore more likely to manifest "in the wild", and that, imo, is a good thing.
It ultimately means you've sacrificed some of your game balance to push players to play based on your vision of the lore.
Insectum7 wrote: I just don't see freebies for running certain flavor options as being automatically problematic.
But what does it achieve?
From a competitive standpoint you've undermined your own attempt at points balance by some margin no matter how small, and from a non-competitive standpoint the lore players would have just paid the points.
It achieves a much more enjoyable game experience.
I have fun with the full experience of playing the game(not just winning the game) in 5th because i know my boys will do X because it is what they would do in the lore with rules to reflect that.
Take just marines since it is the #1 GW product line for 40K
Look at what they have done with late 8th into 9th with primaris everything. cawl apparenetly fixed all the flaws in the various legions so now everybody is ultramarines with a different paint scheme.
there are no restricted theme builds and the variance in the chapters is restricted to what? bonus re-rolls and boosted damage output for certain weapons?
People played many of the armies they loved because they were unique like backfires love for the tau(feel you there started tau in 4th had a fully mechanized force with only a single suit, because i had to have a commander in a suit)
Ravenwing in the 3rd ed mini dex was a bike army that had highly restricted build requirements with special rules nobody else had as the payoff for their limitations. whitescars also favored bike armies but their build requirements and special rules were completely different.
The books of chaos in the 3.5 dex did the same thing. it gave people an immersive reason to love an army instead of just take the best performing primaris units and paint them color X. to go with named special character X.
The points system and the idea of "balanced" is meant as a rough way for both players armies to have a chance at winning. it isn't exact because this isn't chess (and dice are involved). there are to many variables to make it that way in 40K which is why the narrative/lore aspect is so important. and given the new playtester revelations about how GW decided to tweak points in 9th we can see it isn't even relative to balance. "we don't want chaos armies to take more cultists so we are arbitrarily raising the price on them to make them less appealing" Is not a way to develop a balanced system.
They also focused the new edition on tournament players which is exactly the opposite of the kind of games i want out of 40K.
aphyon wrote: I have fun with the full experience of playing the game(not just winning the game) in 5th because i know my boys will do X because it is what they would do in the lore with rules to reflect that.
That's a big, long post that skips all the way around what i've been trying to say.
I'm not suggesting that 3.5 or any other book with freebies should have lost these options, just that they should have paid a fair price or comparable limitation for them.
Again you are losing nothing out of your 'full experience of playing' if your night lords pay a point for their night vision, or if your marine squad has to buy their champion like everyone else - they still have it, they are exactly the same unit with exactly the same rules.
aphyon wrote: "we don't want chaos armies to take more cultists so we are arbitrarily raising the price on them to make them less appealing" Is not a way to develop a balanced system.
It could be said this is exactly what you are arguing for and I am arguing against - perhaps GW feels that the full experience of chaos involves a premium on cultists. It's really no different from putting a discount on something else at the end of the day is it?
My position would be that the cultists, like all things, should cost a fair price. No more or less than they are worth. That way if someone wants to play to their vision of the lore they are not beholden to someone elses vision.
A.T. wrote: I'm guessing mystics, guns, and potentially a psychic hood / tarot?, back when 95 points for a couple of heavy bolters and a plasma gun would have been considered reasonable. The codex creep on heavy weapons was impressive in 5th when you consider that the same three servitors in the GK book cost 40 points...
Ordo Malleus Inquisitor w/Psycannon, 3 Gun Servitors w/2 Heavy Bolters & 1 Plasma Cannon, 2 Sages, 2 Mystics.
And why Kyoto? Because he was the first one to come up with the concept here at Dakka.
aphyon wrote: I have fun with the full experience of playing the game(not just winning the game) in 5th because i know my boys will do X because it is what they would do in the lore with rules to reflect that.
That's a big, long post that skips all the way around what i've been trying to say.
I'm not suggesting that 3.5 or any other book with freebies should have lost these options, just that they should have paid a fair price or comparable limitation for them.
Again you are losing nothing out of your 'full experience of playing' if your night lords pay a point for their night vision, or if your marine squad has to buy their champion like everyone else - they still have it, they are exactly the same unit with exactly the same rules.
aphyon wrote: "we don't want chaos armies to take more cultists so we are arbitrarily raising the price on them to make them less appealing" Is not a way to develop a balanced system.
It could be said this is exactly what you are arguing for and I am arguing against - perhaps GW feels that the full experience of chaos involves a premium on cultists. It's really no different from putting a discount on something else at the end of the day is it?
My position would be that the cultists, like all things, should cost a fair price. No more or less than they are worth. That way if someone wants to play to their vision of the lore they are not beholden to someone elses vision.
It is not, once again you are looking at it purely from a points perspective and not a rules based in lore perspective. every faction in nearly every army got something for free or reduced cost and it was not game breaking, it was thematic given the lore. rather it was reduced cost for master crafted weapons for the master artesians of the salamanders, stubborn for the deathwing, nightvision for the night lords because they come from a world shrouded in darkness, infiltration/stealth for the ravenguard, access to more demons than any other chaos legion for the word bearers etc..
What GW did with cultists in 9th has nothing to do with lore and everything to do with competitive play. what they are worth would depend on which chaos legion is using them. they would be more at home with the word bearers but much less so with say the iron warriors. previous editions special rules were based heavily on lore, the new edition is based on performance for points above all else, and it isn't even cross faction performance it is based on internal faction performance.
At the end of the day you may never like the "freebies" as you call them, you may think they break the game in some way by giving an opposing army a phantom points boost for a specific skill/ability, but it is a far better place IMHO for casual gamers who want to play in the universe with the back story we have all read about for decades than where the game is heading now.
Like HBMC said earlier-everything can be "good" and it can also be "broken" at the same time. the reality that i can pit 3rd ed codexes against 4th, 5th 6th or 7th and still have great games in the 5th ed rule set tells me it isn't that bad.
Insectum7 wrote: It makes lore-based choices slightly more competetive, and therefore more likely to manifest "in the wild", and that, imo, is a good thing.
It ultimately means you've sacrificed some of your game balance to push players to play based on your vision of the lore.
I don't think that's necessarily true either. There can be subtle benefits or disadvantages to various squad sizes depending on the edition. Or there's the perception of "tax" units that people don't want to take because they aren't competitive, but when taken in bulk can make up for it with some sort of bonus. It might also be that point values are built around "expected" army formulations with certain synergies which include said free bonus. You just don't know. "Balance" in 40K is an inherently sloppy concept to begin with with a lot of wiggle room. Looking for precision in point value to determine balance is a bit of a fool's errand to begin with. Army context, inter-unit synergy, terrain, mission all come in to play, and free bonuses for certain builds just falls under the category of shaping army context. It's well within the bounds of design balance.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think that's necessarily true either. There can be subtle benefits or disadvantages to various squad sizes depending on the edition.
True, but that's not the same as making certain units arbitrarily stronger.
Your answer speaks of a nebulous indeterminate 'sloppy' concept of balance that makes it - as you say - a fool's errand to solve. All i'm saying is that pink marines shouldn't arbitrarily get a point off their power mauls for because the lore says they like them. If there is a trade-off somewhere else then fine, otherwise players who want to follow the lore can take the mauls and those who don't don't - no penalty, no bonus either way.
Insectum7 wrote: I don't think that's necessarily true either. There can be subtle benefits or disadvantages to various squad sizes depending on the edition.
True, but that's not the same as making certain units arbitrarily stronger.
Your answer speaks of a nebulous indeterminate 'sloppy' concept of balance that makes it - as you say - a fool's errand to solve. All i'm saying is that pink marines shouldn't arbitrarily get a point off their power mauls for because the lore says they like them. If there is a trade-off somewhere else then fine, otherwise players who want to follow the lore can take the mauls and those who don't don't - no penalty, no bonus either way.
The different color marines already get different free bonuses, and despite point costs not being involved, it's obvious that that's not exactly foolproof guard against imbalance. You're getting caught up on points arbitrarily. Points are just as viable a tool for incentive as different special bonuses, Relics, Stratagems, whatever. There's no difference.
First i picked up some 3d printed dawn of war style defense turrets to use as vengeance defense bunkers (stronghold assault )
from tabletop game supplies
the first one was a twin linked assault cannon looking one, pretty good for $15 the second cost a few dollars more but it came with barrel bits for -battle cannon, demolisher cannon, twin linked auto cannon, punisher cannon, leman russ plasma cannon, and one that looks kind of like a giant grav cannon.
We ended up using the first one as part of the game objectives.
Spoiler:
i mixed things up a bit with this game replacing my land speeder scouts with a full squad of snipers.
the list
5th ed marines,/7th ed mechanicus)
HQ .master of the forge
.tech priest dominus (allied detachment)
Troops
.scout squad
.dread talon (ironclads)
.cataphhron breachers (allied detachment)
FAST
.assault squad
.storm hawk interceptor
.storm eagle gunship.
30 infantry
5 vehicles.
Spoiler:
He was mixing and matching units as well since he got his land raider and defiler assembled
Khorne(3.5 dex)
HQ blood thirster
Troop
.berserkers in rhino
.berserkers in rhino
Elite
.chosen terminators
.obliterators
Heavy
.land raider
.defiler
24 infantry, 4 vehicles.
The highlights
.turn 1 i killed the bloodthirster-moral victory, i just had to dump all my HKs into him and throw the snipers at him as well to get it done.
kharn and his squad managed to score the objective and moved away from me, next turn they blood frenzied and brought it right back to me.
I only managed to kill kharn, his unit and their rhino with an oblit and a few terminators in the mix. i got pretty mauled in return. lost all my infantry save the master of the forge, 2 of my ironclads got immobilize, the third destroyed and the storm eagle got destroyed when it went to hover so the master could get out to grab the objective on turn 5. still had fun watching the berserkers getting drug around by their blood frenzy.
I go back to second edition, which had a few things I’d like to see return- More than the D6. Back the. They used D4, D6, D8, D10, D12, and D20 I believe.
Terminators used two D6 for armor checks and started on a 3+ vs armor mods.
RT and 2nd ed are still my faves. But nowadays I'm thinking that something like SG Necromunda or current edition Kill Team might take the cake for me.
Overall, I think my preference is for Kill Team, strikes a decent balance between complexity and fast-to-play'ness.. But also love the ammo rolls and the pinning mechanic of Necromunda. Would be pretty lopsided for 40K though, as certain factions would be basically immune to both ammo rolls and being pinned (like marines). At the end of the day, alternative activations without any sort of squad coherency is where the sweet spot lies for me. Has made me realize how much I Go U Go and squad blobbing reduces depth and narrative experience in gameplay.
I'm a skirmish player at heart I guess. Space Hulk, Advanced Space Crusade etc scale feels better to me than cramping 30-70 models per side on a tiny board and pretending there is a sense of scale in there somewhere. That just feels like a meat grinder. IMO Epic is a better scale for representing forces of that size on the tabletop.
If I'm being overly critical, I don't think any of the 40K rulesets are really successful in bringing the grimdark to the tabletop. Cruel and sociopathic behaviour like shooting into CC aren't allowed ("the risk of hitting your own troops is too great" - doesn't sound terribly grimdark to me). Reaction mechanics are practiclly nonexistent outside of Space Hulk / Advanced Space Crusade.. But it is what it is.
I kinda like the whole "Action Points" paradigm where a model can do several things in a single turn but has to prioritize their actions, making a choice between shooting lots, preparing to react to the enemy, running as fast as possible, or combining all those things at the expense of doing less of any of them. Wish something like that existed for 40K as well.
I also think that major power creep has the game on a chokehold. Players avoid taking troops because they are "underpowered". Well, what if you were forced to take mostly troops as your army? And could only field a handful of other things? Might be interesting. Like in Space Hulk, where mostly every model is just a "regular" trooper. Makes the special model or two in your force feel much more indispensable, while at the same time forcing you to play more by troop synergy and cooperation instead of singular "death star" units and "expendable chaff".
Getting back to the editions of 40K.. I'd love seeing Rogue Trader being played with modern minis! Now we finally got all those weird and wonderful things as GW miniatyres that only existed as illustrations in the venerable 1st edition.. We got Jokaeros, Ambulls, AdMech monstrosities, "Sister Sin" (Sisters of Silence), Primaris Inceptors etc. Its one of my miniature gaming fantasies. But got nobody who'd be into it except for myself.
All things old….
Simple and effective terrain rules… 5E seemed to be in a good place for this simplicity of often strong cover saves (before they got watered down in 6E/7E). I liked that being obscured = got cover, and that it didn’t matter whether it was terrain or another unit (friend or foe) that did the obscuring.
Fine there was always the discussion of if a ‘big’ unit was obscured enough to get it.
Target Priority, was… interesting
I really, really miss flamer templates, the D6 auto hits these days is nowhere near as satisfying as when you positioned a flamer to get an entire squad (and possibly some stragglers of another).
RT was full of many a funky thing, some of which seem to have come back...
I am firmly in the belief that the not that unique ability to pull off a T1 charge by the 1st player is a very bad thing. It’s always been hard, and a bit of a seesaw to balance melee and shooting. Having units be able to reliably cross no-man’s land and charge the opposition before they’ve even had a chance to do anything, I think only compounds this issue.
That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.
As for something I don't miss, the old, old vehicle targetting grid.
That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.
I find that to be terrible and not immersive at all. it's rather silly in 8th that my tank can fire every gun at you because my right front tread can see you.
The previous system made them unique in their behavior the only thing i think could have been interesting is a degradation for monsterous creatures-down to 1 wound-you can only fire 1 gun and move at half speed- or something to that effect to show damage like the vehicle damage chart did to weapons/mobility.
All in all though even without that i find the distinction between the two to be far better than the wounds system introduced in 8th. i think it could be done right, DUST 1947 does it right. GW just seems to often miss the mark with implementation.
As for something I don't miss, the old, old vehicle targetting grid
Well it was a skirmish game back then., they lend themselves to more detailed rules .
All i know is i am having a heck of a fun time playing 5th and so is the group of players with me. even when i get wrecked like i did in this game.
Late 8th and now 9th seems to put to much focus on serious tourney style game play, of course i have the same attitude towards warmachine...steamroller? no thanks
My biggest gripe with 40K rules systems is the way it deals with the notion of "elapsed time". Stuff either counts as having moved or not etc. Something like the AP paradigm breaks this down to a much more interesting level, where pivoting or slight movement isn't nearly as restricting as the all or nothing approach.
Also the fact that an advancing foot slogger is almost as fast as a vehicle feels weird.
The way that gameplay is capped to a few turns also seems a bit funny. I guess its there to enforce a finite duration to a single game, but anyhoo.. In 40K, both time and space are weirdly unintuitive but LOS still exists. Its a bit of a mess innit
That said not all progress is bad, finally re-unifying the system for monsters and vehicles is a hugely beneficial.
I find that to be terrible and not immersive at all. it's rather silly in 8th that my tank can fire every gun at you because my right front tread can see you.
The previous system made them unique in their behavior the only thing i think could have been interesting is a degradation for monsterous creatures-down to 1 wound-you can only fire 1 gun and move at half speed- or something to that effect to show damage like the vehicle damage chart did to weapons/mobility.
All in all though even without that i find the distinction between the two to be far better than the wounds system introduced in 8th. i think it could be done right, DUST 1947 does it right. GW just seems to often miss the mark with implementation.
Would agree that compared to earlier editions the current LOS rules are more generous and less immersive, for things both large and small.
With respect to Vehicles vs Monstrous Creatures it isn't that the 8E/9E system is better, more that to me it is definatley preferential than having the gulf in mechanics between the two being vast - I could never see why not only was a vehicle only ever a single penetrating hit away from destruction, but that even if a penetrating hit didn’t destroy the vehicle it could easily cripple the vehicle or it’s ability to act next turn…. Whilst a MC had a small handful of wounds, a high toughness and an armour save. There was no degradation, you had to simply chew through those wounds. That said there was something for armour facings, it usually handsomely rewarded manoeuvring to get rear or side shots, but again why only vehicles? I would happily have a system where both MCs and Vehicles had facings, traced LOS to weapon mounts, had damage tables etc...
On this note I think the changes to melta bombs, krak grenades and similar that 8E brought weren’t for the best. To me it made sense you could you these in melee against the big stuff. It could well be edition inertia but trading all your melee attacks to plant an anti-tank charge of somesort to me makes more sensible then only being able to hurl them a short distance and then being unable to use them once melee commences.
Late 8th and now 9th seems to put to much focus on serious tourney style game play, of course i have the same attitude towards warmachine...steamroller? no thanks.
I liked 8E Maelstome of War, and the random Tactical Objectives. Yes sometimes the deck woud not be kind to you, but equally sometimes you could achive victory despite being blown off the table by playing to the drawn objectives. Never quite knowing what you'd need to me meant building versitile flexible lists rather than just ones focuses on removing your oppenents models from the field of play.
An interesting side note on this conversation, i have now run into 2 groups in my local area that have decided to step off at different points. 2 weeks ago i talked with players i didn't know who said they were stopping with 8th. and a couple i know came by yesterday to pick up my 7th edition core rules book set as they are stopping there and now have just about if not every codex for 7th ed(although they refuse to use formations at all).
Rather this is just a preference for the rules or some other thing like having to constantly buy new books, or both, i am curious as to how many people are getting tired of GWs antics and jumping off the train now. i mean as a company they really don't care about the veteran players as they are always focused on the new player and the new sales i don't see it really hurting them in the short term.
I think that will come later as 3d printing improves in quality/cost over actual GW plastics. i mean i just picked up a fantastic set of 3d printed defense turrets that look more in line with dawn of war designs, but the one has an IG leman russ turret on a bunker base with 6 different modular weapon options for a mere $17 US
I think Games Workshop always intended for players to come up with their own interpretations of 40K. Many people may only think GW encouraged you to do this for the fluff and models, but why not think of this in broader terms as well? As in, take everything that exists so far and "kitbash/convert" it to your preference - rules etc included.
That is the ultimate hobbyist IMHO. Taking what exists and making it yours. "The most important rule" and all that.
40K cannot ever graduate to a "classic game" status without freezing the playsystem to one specific edition. I can totally understand the appeal in doing so. But for me personally, that edition still hasn't arrived. I need alternating activation or some reactions mechanic at least. Such a thing totally opens the game up in terms of dynamics.
BTW - I just remembered some fun wacky melee system which was introduced in a White Dwarf magazine back in the day.. It involved some sort of playing cards? And you could parry with sword somehow? Anyone remember what that was all about?
BTW - I just remembered some fun wacky melee system which was introduced in a White Dwarf magazine back in the day.. It involved some sort of playing cards? And you could parry with sword somehow? Anyone remember what that was all about?
I think that might be the Warhammer Gladiator/Pitfight game they did. They suggested putting the hit location on cards. The attacker secretly selects a body location card and the defender secretly selects a body location card. And then the reveal. If the locations are the same it is an automatic miss. If the defence location is next to the attack location roll to hit. If the location is not next to the attack location it is an automatic hit.
I might be misremembering as it was a long time ago and I did not look it up. I have the White Dwarf somewhere. They did something similar for the jousting game they had.
tauist wrote: I think Games Workshop always intended for players to come up with their own interpretations of 40K. Many people may only think GW encouraged you to do this for the fluff and models, but why not think of this in broader terms as well? As in, take everything that exists so far and "kitbash/convert" it to your preference - rules etc included.
That is the ultimate hobbyist IMHO. Taking what exists and making it yours. "The most important rule" and all that.
Absolutely agree. Third definitely has this feeling throughout the core rules at times, and I believe the fourth edition (could be 5th?) book actually has a battle report where the players invent a house rule or two on the fly.
But for me personally, that edition still hasn't arrived. I need alternating activation or some reactions mechanic at least. Such a thing totally opens the game up in terms of dynamics.
So you are looking for something akin to new kill teams or perhaps the new apocalypse rules for game play above skirmish level?
Personally i think the DUST system would work especially with 8th ed and forwards.
It has both alternating activation with a reaction mechanic
.every unit gets 2 actions-they can be any combination of move/shoot/assault/special action. and some can be used twice like move/move or shoot/shoot (re-roll misses so effectively twin linked)
.you roll initiative every turn and players take turns alternately activating units
.every unit has a 16" reaction range(24" for anti-air mounts), so if an enemy unit activates/takes and action within that range and can be seen the non-active players unit rolls 2 dice to see if he can interrupt the active player. 1 success he gets a single action , 2 and he gets both that units actions. doing so counts that unit as having acted for the defending players turn
.close combat is always simultaneous unless a unit has a special rule that says they strike first.
.terrain is all TLOS with one exception-area terrain like ruins/forest block LOS unless you are in them and within 4" of the facing edge.
.the system uses a symbol based D3 dice setup bullseye(1&2) for special actions, shield-cover saves(3&4-vehicles only ever get cover at best) and army symbol-success/infantry saves(5&6-infantry saves can always be taken unless a special weapon specifically ignores it like fire or artillery). so lethality is greatly reduced.
There are other AA systems out there of course but most of them are scaled a bit differently. i know heavy gear, bolt action and star wars legion use the AA mechanic.
There are two difficulties with alternating activations in 40k: people are used to units that can do a lot of different things every turn (in 8e units may be able to move, cast psychic powers, shoot, charge, fight, deny psychic powers, fire overwatch, and fight again) that they resist the kind of restrictions on quantity of actions you need to make alternating activations flow smoothly, and the unit count varies much more between armies than it does in most alternating activation systems, which means you need to address the issue of taking more units to game the alternating system.
With all of the hate that is happening for the new edition, perhaps there will be a resurgence of older editions. As I started with the 5th that is more or less my preferred edition, with some tweaks.
I Never played the 4th but it does look interesting.
One of the best rules sets from 4th is one we brought into 5th that forces tactical play with vehicles against assaults. it is a direct tactical trade off-the more you move the harder you are to hit in CC, but at the expense of less accurate shooting. add in snap fire and the vehicle can at least contribute something to the game while being stunned/shaken or moved to fast to shoot normally (unless you go flat out then driving is all the crew can do, not even pop smoke). it also helps balance out it's comparison to monsterous creatures who suffer no penalties from being wounded to movement or shooting. doing all these positive things to gameplay while also being immersive to what people realistically know. hitting a moving vehicle is much harder to do the faster it is moving VS one that has not moved at all.
3rd and 4th also had the better rule for all sniper weapons-always hits on 2+ and wound on 4+ ignoring BS and toughness of target, rends on a 6+ to wound/pen. but at S3 they were limited to damaging medium vehicles (max damage AV 12) and tough things.
The other big thing about the older editions (mostly 3rd-5th) is the lore side of gameplay, for those of us who enjoy that side of the 40K universe it is a much more immersive experience than the current game represents. I am putting together an allied force of 3rd ed grey knights to assist my marines against our chaos player who is using the 3.5 dex because it is what would happen in universe as the rules for both forces are directly meant to play off of each other.
I think much of the hate for 9th is directed at GWs mishandling of the launch-the indomitus box fiasco, the constantly changing rules for look out sir, and points etc... there are still an army of players who want to play the newest edition as obedient GW fanboys or even players who never experienced anything before 8th or late 7th formation spam. that missed out on how fun the game was in prior editions, even if it wasn't completely perfect.
Back with another 5th ed house rules game 2k points
chaos 3.5 dex VS 5th ed demon hunter/inquisitorial force.
The chaos side
lord in terminator armor
.dark apostle/chaplain
terminator squad
land raider
.helldrake
decimator dread(contemptor model)
.X2 berserker squad in rhinos
.havock squad las tank hunter
.2 obliterators
inquisition side
.cortez
.inquisitor
.X2 death cult assasin squads
.X2 jakero squads
.land raider redeemer
.land raider crusader
.vindicare assassin
There was some heavy proxy going on, all i had was am achillies to stand in for the crusader for them to borrow, and since this list was written so many year ago nobody was willing to put out the kind of money GW was charging for jakero or assassin., so marines and IG stood in for them.
The game was a simple 12" deployment pitched battle, no objectives...well other than killing
the decimator was the saddest unit on the table, getting it's arm taken off twice and getting immobilised twice before dying in turn 5. the only thing keeping it going was the parasitic possession.
The terminators really saved the day after the assassins tore through the berserker squads
At the end chaos won but only barely. down to 1 obliterator, 3 terminators (including the lord), the land raider, helldrake, and a single havock that had to slog halfway across table to get LOS to anything as the battle shifted.
Thinking back 2nd edition was probably my favourite. It's clunky by modern standards, but there were a lot less miniatures on the tabletop so you could get away with it. The game was also quite easily breakable in terms of ridiculous unit options, but TBH back before the internet net-listing days you didn't see a lot of that and if you played a list that 'meant you were a nob' (units of Wolf Guard terminators with cyclone missile launchers etc.) then you would just struggle to find a game or be mocked remorselessly by your friends for doing it.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.
They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).
I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.
Yep this is something I have always struggled with when coming back to 40k after playing games that are more intuitive. I just re-read this battle report which was written shortly before 6th edition (I think). It's really funny to read now because you can tell I was getting sick of the rules and how poorly they represented what was happening in your head from an imagination perspective.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/444245.page
6th edition did finally break me, having Tomix toy aircraft fly overhead and wreck £100 of miniatures with pie plate bombs, it just stopped being fun. I haven't played for a few editions now but the battlereports in WD and reading online makes me think I'm not missing anything; the models of titans, knights, superheavies are lovely, but they have no place on a 28mm tabletop IMO and the scale of warfare just doesn't fit. Epic on the other hand..
Iracundus wrote:2nd edition allowed for shooting into melee. Sure make it a morale test or something but given how callous and desperate the 40K universe should be, many factions should have the option to try. Certain factions like Tyranids shouldn't even hesitate to do so (of course they also auto-pass morale tests). I remember shooting a barbed strangler at a melee between a surviving Termagant and a Terminator. Clearly the Termagant was doomed sooner or later so I shot into the melee, hit and killed the Termagant, and the resulting strangler blast killed the Terminator. The Hive Mind would clearly consider that a profitable trade.
Awesome, one of the great things that worked so well in 2nd edition. That and turrets flying off and landing on people, the psychic phase (I used to love the WHFB magic-style duelling) and the much more concise squad-level combat.
aphyon wrote: Yes and they are damn scary, especially with cortez babysitting them. now that i think of it the death cult assassins are just as scary.
From my little time playing GK in 5th that it seems a slightly 'soft' list. The jokaero are mortar bait (god help them against a 6e eldar or renegades army), and against parking lot lists of the era they are probably putting 420 points of shooting into a 35pt rhino.
I guess it's just weird seeing casualhammer played with 3.5 chaos and helldrakes vs 5e gk and inquisition spam.
When my buddy made the list back in 5th there were a bunch of people at the time that said the jakero/assassin list wouldn't work, but perception is sometimes not reality on the table. it has turned out to be a hard list to fight. it only lost 2 times, once against FW eldar corsairs in 5th and in this game. i have had it beat the heck out of my army several times. a space wolf player in 5th didn't fair much better, he even did a rematch with a stormshield wolfguard heavy force and got wrecked.
playing the combined codexes in 5th may seem weird at first. but the cross compatibility is actually super easy.
in the manner of the helldrake we just took it's normal points cost from 7th, then added in the cost/abilities of vehicle upgrades in the 3.5 chaos codex.
Because we also add in a few of the old FW rules for flyers(removing vector lock-old rules=immobilized flyer crashes) we put back in the blanket aircraft upgrades of armored cockpit (ignore stunned/shaken-not that the helldrake cares being demon possessed does the same thing) and chaff/flare launchers (once per game force a re-roll on an immobilized damage result) at cost.
When it comes to GK/inquisitors i actually prefer my 3rd ed codex. it wasn't really good to run as a complete army, but the special allies rules they had made them an excellent special operations force you could add to any imperial force. also the fact the rules for their abilities were mirror to the lore rules in the chaos dex of the time.
Another buddy of mine has some 5th ed GKs sitting around and he agreed to sell me a grand master and terminator retinue super cheap. so they will be in a future battle. it will be so nice to have shrouding and good hammerhand back,
aphyon wrote: When my buddy made the list back in 5th there were a bunch of people at the time that said the jakero/assassin list wouldn't work, but perception is sometimes not reality on the table. it has turned out to be a hard list to fight.
Must be doing something I hadn't accounted for.
A semi-serious 2k in 5th i'd be thinking ~12 hulls and 70 bodies packed with literally dozens of flamers, meltas, and missiles. Half way across the board turn 1 and just bum-rushing, losing a couple of tanks a turn for the first few turns is just cost of business for a parking lot list.
Yeah well the other list he lost against was a vehicle heavy build, it was a hard army to fight no matter what you brought...so much S8/AP2
it was a corsairs list
.2 prince's
.X2 dire avenger squads with falcons (dedicated transports
.3 warp hunters
.a squad of 3 hornets with pulse lasers
.2 eldar aircraft.
i think there might have been another unit, hard to remember more than that since it has been like 8 years since i last played against it, the guy was a huge eldar mono faction player so he had a bit of everything. great friend, sadly for our group he moved a few hours away for work, got married the usual life stuff, have not seen him in years.
Although for some reason the dice gods saw fit that more than not my dreadnought themed army took him to a tie game more than wins or losses.
If you look back a couple posts you can see how easy it is to put a helldrake in with the 3.5 dex
and yes 22 jakero, it works in combination with other stuff. my friend is actually a master of breaking 40K army builds for fun. we try them out see how dumb they are. the all bike 8th ed custodes list is another of his creations that has never lost a game.
So my battles against the forces of chaos continue, but this time with some help from the emperors holy inquisition.
i scored some cheap grey knight terminators from a friend and painted them up real fast, gonna re-base them when secret weapon minis releases their new color injected bases, got my eyes on the "imperial halls" for the GKs.
My opponent had just finished a rather drawn out game of 9th with his son on the tau battlefield.
So we went for a simpler kill points game of 5th edition with our house rules
My force
marines-5th ed codex
.master of the forge + 4 servitors
.scout sniper team
.dread talon-X3 ironclad dreads
.doredeo dread (using my nuclear shrimp HURK walker)
Allied-grey knights-3rd ed codex
grand master with terminator retinue
allied callidus assassin.
His force
chaos 3.5 codex
.terminator lord-khorne
.word bearers chaplain/dark apostle
.kharn
.2x 8 berserkers in rhinos
.8 posessed
.land raider
.blood crushers(imported from 5th)
.helldrake(imported from 7th)
The start chaos side
imperial side
I won the roll off and made him go first. it was a bloody game all around. this like this happened-got a lucky hit on the heldrake and caused it to crash but it had already killed most of my assault squad. our game only lasted about an hour and a half, in that time he had lost kharn, 2 berserker squads, their rhinos, blood crushers, a few of his possessed and the helldrake.
By comparison my losses were
.the assault squad, grey knights, and 2 ironclads. for a narrow hard fought victory over chaos.
4th game against these berserkers and finally got a win 7 VS 4 victory points.
Next week i look forward to a challenge as our iron warriors player is set to have a match up against the berserkers.
Good choice....especially if you have a chaos infestation. the 3rd ed codex is a great counter to the 3.5 chaos dex, even better if you run into non khorne demons with the original psy weapons ignore invul saves rules.
I always loved the look of GK armor. glad i have a squad of them now.
aphyon wrote: Good choice....especially if you have a chaos infestation. the 3rd ed codex is a great counter to the chaos dex, even better if you run into non khorne demons with the original psy weapons ignore invul saves rules
The old power armoured GK were a tough sell, but the terminators and GM were solid, especially with sacred incense and fielded as a proper retinue.
Their rules were pretty scattered but blanket immunity to minor psychic powers (i.e. siren) and counting anything with daemonic stature or 50pts of gifts (including daemonic weapons) as daemons encompassed a fair bit.
A.T. wrote: Their rules were pretty scattered but blanket immunity to minor psychic powers (i.e. siren) and counting anything with daemonic stature or 50pts of gifts (including daemonic weapons) as daemons encompassed a fair bit.
Not to get into it, but GKs wouldn't've been immune to Siren, as it didn't target them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Not to get into it, but GKs wouldn't've been immune to Siren, as it didn't target them.
Normal psychic powers had to target the GK to be negated. Minor powers "used by the enemy have no effect at all on Grey Knights".
GW never did a good job of clarifying that kind of stuff - is a squad caught by a blast aimed at something else 'targetted' for instance. Large tournament FAQs, small official FAQs. I remember they couldn't even keep their errata for daemonhunters and witch hunters in sync with each other.
Many people here said that they've made customized rule sets (ie modified versions of 5th edition).
I'm currently working on a hybrid version of the rules based on 5th. I'd love to see what other people have come up with. If you've made a new rule set of know of one, would you mind posting a link?
Many people here said that they've made customized rule sets (ie modified versions of 5th edition).
I'm currently working on a hybrid version of the rules based on 5th. I'd love to see what other people have come up with. If you've made a new rule set of know of one, would you mind posting a link?
Much appreciated!
I put mine in the very first post of this topic.
P.S.
H.B.M.C.
If you could point to an official FAQ/errata it would help end the debate quickly
aphyon wrote: H.B.M.C. If you could point to an official FAQ/errata it would help end the debate quickly
There never was one and, quite frankly, GW's FAQ skills in those days wouldn't've given a coherent answer anyway*.
I remember back in the day there were three massive threads on Siren vs Grey Knights. At first I was very much in the "They don't effect Grey Knights!" camp. Over time the conversation became whether something had a direct or indirect effect (a direct effect could be ignored, whereas an indirect effect could not be). What that thread taught me and a few others is that the game had neither distinctions built into its rules, and thus we were adding definitions to the game that simply weren't there. Finally a lot of us came to the conclusion that as Siren does not target the GKs, they are unable to ignore it. Siren gives a special rule to the person who cast it, rather than rules onto those who would target the caster.
*To this day I will never forget when asked if a Blood Rage was added to a model's Daemonic Flight movement and they answered with "Blood Rage will not make a jump pack fly faster", even thought Daemonic Flight was mostly represented via giant wings.
My ideal would be something like late 3.5 codexes/models for army complexity and volume, plus some of the stats and mechanics of early 8th, including subfactions rationalizing vehicle stats, and stratagems before they got insane.
And, y'know, points balance, but that might be too much to ask.
aphyon wrote: P.S.
H.B.M.C.
If you could point to an official FAQ/errata it would help end the debate quickly
The closest thing to an errata on the subject was this :
Q./ 5.03 - Sisters of Battle, Grey Knights and Black Templar’s with the ‘Abhor the Witch’ vow all suffer “no effect” from Minor psychic powers. Exactly what does “no effect” mean? Just if the unit is targeted by (or within the area effect of) the power? Or does it mean any effect, in any situation, anytime?
A./ If the minor powers affect the units targeting ability or restricts/modifies the units ability in any way, then the Minor Psychic powers have no effect, in the case of Siren, it does not affect the Grey Knights or Sisters of Battle. (WAU Interpretation*)
Unofficial 40K FAQ1 - 40KFAQ 1.3 May 2007.pdf - a mix of official errata and faq, answers from GWs forums, and interpretation from dakkadakka and wargamerAU, intended to be a reference for tournament use. Page 11, section 5(characters) in the unlikely event you have an old copy of the pdf yourself.
I personally agree with their interpretation as, unlike the prior section of the aegis rule covering full psychic powers, the minor power immunity did not require that the unit had to be targeted - only effected. And having a restriction placed on your target selection is an effect. GW never followed up, the just removed minor psychic powers from the game.
So was the original debate a RAI VS RAW argument before that clarification?
For GKs it would make sense from a lore/RAI perspective.
in BFGGK ships were effectively immune to the restrictions/powers of chaos fleet effects.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So a little batrep update.
Some friends had a challenge game world eaters VS iron warriors in 5th edition at 2K points
i only caught a glance at this one as i was playing my own game (pictured later)
the table-
I know the IW list well-
.warsmith
.X3 las/plas squads
.X3 obliterator squads of 3
.X3 las/heavy bolter predators with the works
.basilisk
khorne had from what i could see
.blood thirster
.terminator champions
.land raider
.X2 berserker squads in rhinos
.kharn
.X2 obliterators
.decimator
.helldrake
IWs won the day thanks to some super bad dice rolls for khorne
Now on to my game
i decided it was time to break out my turret bunkers,. so i ran a heavy defense list
with a proxy firestorm redoubt (fortification)
HQ .master of the forge (forgot to put his servitors on the table)
TROOP
.5 man bolter scout squad
.10 man sniper scout team
.dread talon (X3 ironclads)
FAST
.assault squad
.storm eagle gunship
.stormhawk interceptor
Elysians-double force org
HQ .lord commissar.
TROOP
X2 drop sentinel
FAST
.X3 tauros venetor multi laser
.2-X3 tauros venetor las cannon
HQ .lord commissar.
TROOP
X2 drop sentinel
.X3 tauros venetor multi laser
.X3 tauros venetor las cannon
..vendetta gunship
the game started out this way
First half of the game he was actually hurting me pretty good, but after turn 5 i started removing his las cannons and the game turned quickly.
random turn length actually saw us go all the way to 7, which is not what he wanted. at the end of 5 we were only 1 kill point difference. by turn 7 he only had 1 unit left on the table.
aphyon wrote: So was the original debate a RAI VS RAW argument before that clarification?
Not exactly...
Rules as written, daemonhunters codex page 8 (page 3 of the free version) - "Minor psychic powers used by the enemy have no effect at all on Grey Knights."
The argument against adds the additional condition of being explicitly targeted.
edit - and that is a lot of tauros vehicles. The real things or good 3d prints?
A.T. wrote: The argument against adds the additional condition of being explicitly targeted.
I disagree because you're not adding any conditions. Powers have targets - they are built into the rules for the power. Siren's target was "Self", therefore the power effects the psyker, not the GKs.
aphyon wrote: So was the original debate a RAI VS RAW argument before that clarification?
Not exactly...
Rules as written, daemonhunters codex page 8 (page 3 of the free version) - "Minor psychic powers used by the enemy have no effect at all on Grey Knights."
The argument against adds the additional condition of being explicitly targeted.
edit - and that is a lot of tauros vehicles. The real things or good 3d prints?
Didn't see that last part.....no that's the real deal he spent about $1,500 US on that FW army...that no longer exists in 9th edition, good thing we still play 5th
aphyon wrote: Didn't see that last part.....no that's the real deal he spent about $1,500 US on that FW army...that no longer exists in 9th edition, good thing we still play 5th
Well at least it is assembled and in use. I have a small krieg army... somewhere. Buried beneath all of the other unbuilt stuff.
A.T. wrote: The argument against adds the additional condition of being explicitly targeted.
I disagree because you're not adding any conditions. Powers have targets - they are built into the rules for the power. Siren's target was "Self", therefore the power effects the psyker, not the GKs.
You have used two entirely different conditions in that sentence.
'Targets' and 'effects' are not equal. A psychic power that targets a single model and inflicts a wound on every model in a line between that target and the psyker effects every model along the line, but only targets the one model at the end.
And you are also adding the addition condition I spoke of - being targeted was never a requirement of the rule, the only question that matters was whether or not the power is effecting the grey knights in any way at all. In this case it is effecting their actions in the shooting and assault phases.
i just ordered a set of the 4 new epic scale tauros venators and elysian drop troops from vanguard along with a pack of aeronautica valkyries to fill out my guard armored company.
should be cool. IIRC got a list set up at 250 PL for index 8th ed style epic game.
Finally got a cleaned up set of rule modifications for my modified 5th edition rule set. Managed to get a game in this week end (been a while since I played). Mostly went well although thinking of tweaking the overwatch rules to be a bit more like 2nd edition.
Really, there needs to be a tradeoff such that you don't want to go into overwatch unless absolutely necessary, and even then it needs to feel like gamble if it will pay off or not. Need to think more about that.
Anyway - I'd love any feedback on it, things I've missed or got wrong. Let me know if there is some way to better clarify the changes or make them stand out.
Well if you want to make overwatch more meaningful you could always use the DUST version. basically do a LD check on the unit being charged if they succeed then they get to shoot normally in overwatch but loose the ability to take any action in the next player turn. your rules have a similar feel
How has the response been in your local gaming group?
Well, presently my local gaming group consists of my kids and my nephews who are all learning to play - so they don't have a great basis for comparison. I might try playing games through tabletop simulator with my old group and see how it goes.
Regarding overmatch. It's interesting to see the logic of younger kids at work - because they are quick to call BS when things don't logically or intuitively make sense. First question they asked about over watch was why they couldn't shoot at something also In relatively close range even if it wasn't charging them. Realistically, there is no reason why the unit couldn't - but we so often add rules and extra thematic justifications in the name of balancing or streamlining. Maybe it's better to just go with our gut.
So I was thinking of making overwatch even more like 2nd edition, where you could shoot at something during the movement phase (not assault phase) - with the caveat that perhaps you'd have to nominate a unit you wanted to overwatch fire against and it has to have moved within 24" or something (also take a -1 to hit or something). At least keep the option there but make it more risky to do.
A.T. wrote: You have used two entirely different conditions in that sentence.
'Targets' and 'effects' are not equal. A psychic power that targets a single model and inflicts a wound on every model in a line between that target and the psyker effects every model along the line, but only targets the one model at the end.
The effect is placed upon the target. That's where it ends.
If I have a psychic power that targets me and gives me an Invul save, GKs would not get to ignore that Invul save (unless they had a weapon that ignored invul saves).
H.B.M.C. wrote: The effect is placed upon the target. That's where it ends.
This is literally impossible to justify without monty python logic.
Siren Player - you can't target the siren
GK Player - i'm not effected by minor psychic powers
Siren Player - it isn't effecting you
GK Player - it's effecting my target selection
Siren Player - no it isn't
GK Player - well then i'm going to shoot the siren
(loop)
H.B.M.C. wrote: If I have a psychic power that targets me and gives me an Invul save, GKs would not get to ignore that Invul save (unless they had a weapon that ignored invul saves).
The GK player isn't making the invulnerable save, the chaos player is. You know this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mezmorki wrote: So I was thinking of making overwatch even more like 2nd edition, where you could shoot at something during the movement phase (not assault phase) - with the caveat that perhaps you'd have to nominate a unit you wanted to overwatch fire against and it has to have moved within 24" or something (also take a -1 to hit or something). At least keep the option there but make it more risky to do.
2nd ed overwatch did get quite messy though. Games could descend into hide and overwatch fests where players would just wait on each other to get a clear out of cover shot. There was a sense of why shoot in my phase when I can shoot them in theirs.
2nd ed overwatch did get quite messy though. Games could descend into hide and overwatch fests where players would just wait on each other to get a clear out of cover shot. There was a sense of why shoot in my phase when I can shoot them in theirs.
That's probably why Andy Chambers, when working on writing the reaction rules for DUST, they made it only a 16" range and not a guaranteed action , you have to roll to see if your guys were "alert enough or paying attention" to react.
Everything affects everything in some form or another, which is why "minor powers have no effect on GKs" only works if you take the target of the power into account, otherwise the use of any minor power in any situation by any psyker on either side would be ignored, regardless of what it actually does, because, as I said, everything affects everything.
There are no "degrees" of effects. It is binary. Saying otherwise is adding conditions to the game that do not exist.
Siren works on Grey Knights because it's not being cast on the Grey Knights.
Guys your both great, but this is getting us nowhere you disagree, great news neither one of you will be playing against the other and not with the GK 3rd ed codex .
Having just re-read the paragraph on P8 it clearly covers 2 distinct in game actions
1.powers that target a GK unit and how they can negate it via the Aegis or psychic hood
that part of the subject ends with the period at the end of the sentence.
the final line is a secondary rule of the Aegis that has nothing to do with powers that "target" a GK unit.
It says quite clearly and simply
2."minor psychic powers used by the enemy have no effect at all on grey knights"
Siren appears not to "target" a GK unit so it cannot be negated by LD test, however if it is classified also as a minor power as per the second rule the GKs will just ignore it by RAW.
It is very similar to how GKs in BFG ignored the effects/rules of ships with marks of chaos.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Siren works on Grey Knights because it's not being cast on the Grey Knights.
We have now come full circle.
a) "Grey Knights are not the target" - I refer you to my original post explaining why that is not a requirement and referencing the wording of the rule.
b) "Effect = target" - These are not the same. I refer you to my post given an example of the difference.
c) "The effect starts and ends on the siren" - it clearly effects the target selection of the GK unit. See my previous post.
d) And then back to a.
Every single website post from the era I have managed to find, the posted tournament errata from the era, and as far as I can tell the rule as written disagree with you. But i've got nothing against houserules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon wrote: Guys your both great, but this is getting us nowhere you disagree, great news neither one of you will be playing against the other and not with the GK 3rd ed codex
Still worth hashing out - for my benefit too. I've got an old project to clean up the old books and rules which I should get back to at some point and all these edge cases are something that will need to be addressed.
The question of siren vs GK led me to that tournament errata document which I don't think i've seen before but is more more extensive that just the official FAQs and errata - i've tracked down a lot of GWs old documents but the tourny doc is the best master list i've seen, at least for that specific date.
I need to read through Mezmorkis stuff too. Looks like we have gone in slightly different directions (i've tried to limit extra rolls and actions like overwatch) but i'm a lot less set on other areas like wound allocation and objectives.
Mezmorki wrote: So I was thinking of making overwatch even more like 2nd edition, where you could shoot at something during the movement phase (not assault phase) - with the caveat that perhaps you'd have to nominate a unit you wanted to overwatch fire against and it has to have moved within 24" or something (also take a -1 to hit or something). At least keep the option there but make it more risky to do.
2nd ed overwatch did get quite messy though. Games could descend into hide and overwatch fests where players would just wait on each other to get a clear out of cover shot. There was a sense of why shoot in my phase when I can shoot them in theirs.
Agreed. However, part of the problem with the older game was that in many cases objectives required less movement in order to secure. Missions were also frequently setup with distinct attackers and defenders, which meant that the defender could sit back on overwatch with little need to push out. With newer editions using multiple objective points, players that sit back and don't move - especially with troop units - won't be able to grab objectives as well.
I'm looking at a version that limits shooting to within 24" max range, comes with a -1 to hit modifier, and also means those units strike in melee at initiative 1 and lose the benefits of being in cover.
Mezmorki wrote: I'm looking at a version that limits shooting to within 24" max range, comes with a -1 to hit modifier, and also means those units strike in melee at initiative 1 and lose the benefits of being in cover.
With the target selection rules Is suspect there may be quite an incentive to put a lot of units onto overwatch.
- Triggering them one at a time to efficiently remove units, particularly those that were not quite destroyed due to selective firing.
- Waiting on units tied in close combat (where your side is about to lose) and slaughtering the winners with overwatch
And quite a few others depending on the restrictions and timings involved. Not all bad, but a lot of potential for interruption and complexity, the latter of which might lead to a number of additional edge-case rules being needed.
I'm thinking that you can interrupt to resolve overwatch fire after a unit completes a normal move/run or after it completes a charge. No other circumstances would allow overwarch fire to be taken.
Also, if declared shooting is used, then potentially you'd have to declare your overwatch target as well (i.e. "we're gunna wait for unit X to come into view and then blast 'em!)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Siren works on Grey Knights because it's not being cast on the Grey Knights.
We have now come full circle.
a) "Grey Knights are not the target" - I refer you to my original post explaining why that is not a requirement and referencing the wording of the rule.
b) "Effect = target" - These are not the same. I refer you to my post given an example of the difference.
c) "The effect starts and ends on the siren" - it clearly effects the target selection of the GK unit. See my previous post.
d) And then back to a.
Every single website post from the era I have managed to find, the posted tournament errata from the era, and as far as I can tell the rule as written disagree with you. But i've got nothing against houserules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon wrote: Guys your both great, but this is getting us nowhere you disagree, great news neither one of you will be playing against the other and not with the GK 3rd ed codex
Still worth hashing out - for my benefit too. I've got an old project to clean up the old books and rules which I should get back to at some point and all these edge cases are something that will need to be addressed.
The question of siren vs GK led me to that tournament errata document which I don't think i've seen before but is more more extensive that just the official FAQs and errata - i've tracked down a lot of GWs old documents but the tourny doc is the best master list i've seen, at least for that specific date.
I need to read through Mezmorkis stuff too. Looks like we have gone in slightly different directions (i've tried to limit extra rolls and actions like overwatch) but i'm a lot less set on other areas like wound allocation and objectives.
Well as i noted in my post-having read the RAW it seems pretty clear to me that HBMC is incorrect as the Aegis rule has 2 specific separate components
1.-It does not target them so they don't have to LD check counter it
2.-as it does not target them it is automatically ignored/has no effect.
Just got a little epic scale 40K in using 8th ed rules-225 power level so i had to add some elysians in to back up the admech.
the table
The start
turn 1
turn 3
turn 5
turn 6
Khorne always wins but i made him pay for it. my elysian lord commisars were doing the emperors work. one even finished off a squad of berserkers in close combat.
I lost the roll to go first. and it cost me 3 dune crawlers...quad las cannons hurt.
At the end i managed to kill 2 havoc squads, 1 hell talon, 2 spartan land raider, a squad of bloodleters, 4 squads of berserkers, 1 terminator squad, and a demon prince
For that i lost 3 tech priest dominus, 4 3/4 cataphron units, 2 tauros venators, 2 vendetta gunships, 5 dune crawlers, 2 lord commisars, and 1 1/2 squads of elysians
So one of the guys i have been playing with for a few years mentioned he had not seen half the stuff i own since i mostly have been playing the one army since 5th with a few swaped loadouts...and the covid lockdowns haven't helped our full game group area access play time in the last 6 months at capacity.
So with everything going to primaris spam or legends with 9th, lets play a game of tally your old marines/minis.
SALAMANDERS SUCCESORS
HQ .brey'arth ashmantle -dreadnought (FW)
.master of the forge w/4 servitor
.master of the forge on bike W/conversion beamer
.terminator librarian
My most intense games were with 5th. Whackiest games were with 7th. I think that a "premium" edition of 40k could be made by blendering the union of all options from 2nd-7th edition (barring clearly screwy aspects like Virus Grenades, of course) then refactoring/sculpting down rules, and perhaps going for some version of alternating-activation based on "army quarters" or so.
Instant Death and "Explodes" would be replaced by "+D3 Wounds/HP" damage, and vehicles would either shift to toughness/armor, or have more toughness to compensate.
USRs, consolidated with less bloat. Minimal bespoke rules.
Movement as a stat. Overwatch based off attack declaration.
I actually despise the hull point system. you either choose one or the other. a damage chart or a hit point system. intuitively the damage system makes sense because we can mentally relate to a vehicle getting a track or road wheel blown off, are a weapon mount getting destroyed/dmaged beyond use.
DUST uses a hit point system comparable to 40K 8+ but they do it in a better way. they still require facings for weapons, they have more hit points that 6th or 7th but not as many as 8th +, they limit what can hurt them by armor class (1-3 light, 4-5 medium, 6-7heavy/super heavy).
So small arms can hurt light things like a jeep (armor class 1), but are not able to hurt heavy armor like a tank.
There is also no roll to wound in that system if you hit you also score a wound. there is also no invulnerable saves of any kind, just infantry saves, cover saves(the only things vehicles get), and damage resilience (FNP equivalent)
I also try to steer clear of anything from 2nd edition as it was more RPG oriented that 3-7 that are back compatible.
When it comes to USRs there are only like 2 1/2 pages in 5th. bloat is what happened in 7th and 8th+
aphyon wrote: I actually despise the hull point system. you either choose one or the other. a damage chart or a hit point system. intuitively the damage system makes sense because we can mentally relate to a vehicle getting a track or road wheel blown off, are a weapon mount getting destroyed/dmaged beyond use.
DUST uses a hit point system comparable to 40K 8+ but they do it in a better way. they still require facings for weapons, they have more hit points that 6th or 7th but not as many as 8th +, they limit what can hurt them by armor class (1-3 light, 4-5 medium, 6-7heavy/super heavy).
So small arms can hurt light things like a jeep (armor class 1), but are not able to hurt heavy armor like a tank.
There is also no roll to wound in that system if you hit you also score a wound. there is also no invulnerable saves of any kind, just infantry saves, cover saves(the only things vehicles get), and damage resilience (FNP equivalent)
I also try to steer clear of anything from 2nd edition as it was more RPG oriented that 3-7 that are back compatible.
When it comes to USRs there are only like 2 1/2 pages in 5th. bloat is what happened in 7th and 8th+
Sure, I can respect the Dust system. So long as there remains a way to inflict damage on vehicles beyond "reduce HP", and damage isn't a "binary death roulette," then it's ultimately a resolution mechanic.
There are approx 80-something USRs in 7th. Many of them are minor variations of the same one, plus the rules were also written in a half-way USR/halfway bespoke manner. 8th of course, being all bespoke, also meant inflation of FAQ sizes for "same rule/different name" rules.
One thing that always amused me was how 7th had a USR that went completely unused for half the edition (Missile Lock), but needed many bespoke rules for "can fire more than one weapon."
5th edition has a total of 22 USRs that cover everything the game needs and it worked just fine.
So long as there remains a way to inflict damage on vehicles beyond "reduce HP"
Not sure what you mean by that, if you want a double damage system like 6th/7th edition then i cannot agree, it is a terrible game design mechanic that punishes players for bringing a legal unit.
40K is also not a system that lends itself to more complex detailed rules allowed in skirmish systems like battletech.
It is a tactical combat game. armored vehicles are supposed to be hard to kill, which is why you need dedicated weapons designed to kill them. which is why 5th edition worked so well from a game mechanic standpoint and a tactical play standpoint.
aphyon wrote: 5th edition has a total of 22 USRs that cover everything the game needs and it worked just fine.
So long as there remains a way to inflict damage on vehicles beyond "reduce HP"
Not sure what you mean by that, if you want a double damage system like 6th/7th edition then i cannot agree, it is a terrible game design mechanic that punishes players for bringing a legal unit.
40K is also not a system that lends itself to more complex detailed rules allowed in skirmish systems like battletech.
It is a tactical combat game. armored vehicles are supposed to be hard to kill, which is why you need dedicated weapons designed to kill them. which is why 5th edition worked so well from a game mechanic standpoint and a tactical play standpoint.
By damage roulette, I mean that big things either die or don't die. Land Raiders were always awkward to use relative to Rhinos/Razorbacks for that reason, which meant using dual Raiders was a "win big/lose big" army in 5th.
Even if you ignore Grav, or the divide in durability of Monstrous Creatures vs vehicles in 6th/7th, or Invisibility, then the Stomp and Thunderblitz tables were also primary examples of "death roulette." The olde classic of "6 autokills/ignores invuls" versus Invisibility or 2++ rerollable...yeah.
Much of that is the reason why we are using the 5th edition core rules. if you look back to my first post that started this topic. we house rule in 15 rules some from 3rd/4th and some from 6th/7th to make the game more enjoyable. but if say a faction USR rule in one of those other codexes from a different edition conflicts with a core mechanic or USR form 5th, the 5th edition rules supercede/ignore the others. i used the example of dunestrider VS move through cover in my previous posts. it pretty well fixes all the problems you mentioned.
Since we are playing for fun(obviously since we went back to 5th edition) nobody is going to roll in with a blind/re-roll saves deathstar terminator/librarian combo from 7th.
stuff like that gets you mercilessly mocked, unless we are planning some silly things ahead of time like playing 30K and bringing the emperor to the table.
aphyon wrote: I think next in line will be the 5th ed blood angels codex and probably the 4th ed black templar codex.
The 4e templars under 5e rules were decently playable with the update (m1620223a_Black_Templars_Version_1_1.pdf). Outdated pricing both for and against them in places.
I’m really glad I found this thread. I want the narrative/fluff aspect of 40k to have the most importance in my games. 250 point armies consisting of customized figures with background info for each unit or character. I think the army lists included with the 3rd edition rules could be a good start. Does anyone have experience with those lists?
I was just talking with someone about 2nd Ed on another thread, and they were saying how someone at their store bought an army of 120 Hormagaunts to use, and how crazy that was.
This in turn sent me down the path of exploration about how I could try to counter that with my marines at the time, and it just reminded me of all the crazy options you had. My first response was to load up marines in Rhinos, arm them with Flamers, plasma and Frag grenades and ram through the Hormagaunts because they couldn't hurt the Rhinos. All the while flaming out the hatches (at least six models could fire out of the Rhino) and throwing grenades. You could totaly do that in 2nd Ed, and it sounded so effing cool narratively, and it would be pretty effective, tactically etc, and it was right there in the rules. God I miss that game.
Digging deeper I re-discovered my Attack Bike combo that I had used in 2nd, where after the plastic/metal upgrade model came out, you could arm it with a Heavy Bolter. You could then use a vehicle card to upgrade the Heavy Bolter with a Heavy Flamer. Because it was a Bike, you could accelerate to Fast Speed in a single turn, and you could also arm the driver with a Flamer and attatch Auto-Launchers to the bike that shot out Frag Grenades. So you had this model that could fly forward 20something inches, fire off two auto-hitting template weapons that set models on fire, and unleash a barrage of three 4"diameter blasts at the same time.
THEN you could put a Recon Pack on the bike for a higher Strategy Rating for a better chance to go first.
This looks like being forced in to spending 100s of dollars to tailor against one army. It doesn't sound as a very valid way to deal with playing w40k, because at that point we may as well go with buying an army for every faction, maybe even for multiple GW games just in case something is fun to play at that time.
OscarWao wrote: I’m really glad I found this thread. I want the narrative/fluff aspect of 40k to have the most importance in my games. 250 point armies consisting of customized figures with background info for each unit or character. I think the army lists included with the 3rd edition rules could be a good start. Does anyone have experience with those lists?
Welcome, glad you found us.
Once you realise how toxic the tourney/competitive(last GT i participated in was 2011) scene is, you understand the narrative/fluff aspect of 40K is the game is the reason we enjoy playing it. we want to play IN the universe and have our toy soldiers behave as if they were in that universe.
For 250 point games specifically i suggest you get a hold of the 4th edition main rulebook or it's PDF. it had the original combat patrol (250 point armies) and kill team rules/mission scenarios.
We use a version of that for our kill team games with 5th ed rules
I don't have the official document scanned, so i will just read off it and post the short version
.250 points
.minimum 5 minis, max of 12
.one mini must be the leader and can be the only one of that type-IE sargents, librarians, cannoness, commisar, farseer etc...
.3 minis can have a special rule to represent battlefield skills(move through cover, relentless, eternal warrior etc..) but it cannot change the unit or weapon type
.you are encouraged to name all your minis for more fun
.units can be taken from any section of the codex with the following restrictions.
.maximum of 40 points (counts towards the 250 point total) of personal war gear from the unit selected-sternguard, loota boy, striking scorpion etc..
.no named characters
.no monsterous creatures(although they make a great op-force for themed games-for every normal player a single nid player gets to bring 250 points of big bugs for a bug hunt for example)
.no aircraft/flyers
.no vehicles with a combined AV above 33-so you could bring a light vehicle like a razorback, chimera, war walker, grot mini tank, necron ark etc... but not something like a dreadnought or a predator
.using the 6th ed mysterious terrain rules is recommended for more fun. it leads to some silly things happening.
After each match a mini gets a d6 experience they can use to buy better gear or upgrade their stats-upgrading stats cost 5 XP each and cannot be done twice in a match for the same stat line.
(max stats are capped at- WS7, BS6, S6, T6, W3, I7, A4, LD10 )
If a mini "dies" in a match you roll a d6 on a 1 or 2 they take a permanent battle wound to carry over into the rest of their games.
the "wound" chart is as follows- 2d6s rolled as percentiles
for space i am leaving out the funny anecdotes in the descriptions
11-out of actions-cannot participate in the next game
12-16-multiple injuries-roll d6 times on this chart ignore out of action, multiple injuries and full recovery
21-22-chest wound-toughness reduced by 1
23-leg wound- movement reduced by 1"
24-arm wound- strength reduced by 1
25-head wound-at the start of the next game roll a d6-1-3 the model gains stubborn/4-6 the model gains rage
26-blind in one eye-BS skill reduced by 1, a second blinding results in the model being retired from the kill team
31-33-shell shock-initiative reduced by 1
34-36-old battle wound-start off the game roll a d6, on a roll of 1 the wound is acting up-the model may not participate.
41-45-full recovery- ignore all injuries-THIS IS KILL TEAM
56 bitter enmity-wounds cause mental damage roll a d6 and gain hatred for the following
.1-3 the enemy mini that caused the wound
.4-5 the enemy team that caused the wound
.6 the race that caused the wound
61-63-captured-exchange members with enemy kill team that also has captured minis (we rarely use this one, mostly ignore it)
64-horrible scars-this mini now causes fear
65 impressive scars- (so many role playing reasons) can only be applied once gain +1 leadership stat.
66-survival against the odds-full recovery gain an additional d6 exerience
The winning team also gains a pool d6 experience after each battle that they can use to buy stats or gear across the entire kill team spread out as needed.
Wow bud, thanks for the great post! Luckily I never experienced any real toxicity during a tournament. I am glad that 40k will never be like Magic the gathering; all mechanics no story. I will definitely give all my old books a read through when they arrive.
I am glad that 40k will never be like Magic the gathering; all mechanics no story.
Unfortunately that is the direction GW is taking the game. they slowly ramped it up as 8th progressed and have tripled down on it with 9th. buffs and de-buffs based on a resource mechanic. as well as "character" for a faction relying on the same resource mechanic instead of being in-built rules for the faction based in the lore.
I recently helped write up a 3rd edition style list for a new player who plays "white scars" in 8th/9th but has never experienced anything before those editions. i am hoping we get a game in this weekend to give him a taste of how 40K used to play. as it is completely a different game than what he is used to.
Have you all experimented with something like a DM for games of 40k? I know Inquisitor and early WFB had this, but I’ve never seen it elsewhere.
I want to organize something like the Pilgrim thing they did at warhammer world so I’ll be going to the local game club this Sunday and asking if anyone is interested in the format that you suggested. How many games have you played with it?
It is basically old school kill teams we have played many games of it when we feel like running the ongoing campaign. i also ran a mini fun tournament for it back during 7th edition.
The most fun of the kill teams at the mini tourney was a grot army with 4 mini tanks one upgraded to commander and a killa kan.
An example of my 2 kill teams using these rules
.master of the forge
.las/plas razorback
.X2 sternguard
.assault marine W/plasma pistol
Update time.
a game of our hybrid 5th edition
nids (4th) VS chaos(3.5) at 2k.
I decided to give one of my regular chaos players a good fight, since he plays khorne i wrote up a CC themed nid list for our game.
I sold off my nids some time ago so i borrowed a bunch from a friend who is also a regular. since they were not mine they were not WYSIWYG
The table-using the forges of mars mat from gamematEU
The Nids
HQ-
X2 brood lords
Troops
X2 gene stealer broods
Elite
X2 CC focused leaping warrior broods
Heavy
X2 carnifex
X1 zoanathrope
-47 minis/80 wounds
We did a 12" deployment battle.
i won the roll to go first and pushed up hard. we had very little shooting on both sides so when my stealers outflanked from reserve on turn 2 this is how the table looked.
One of my brood lords got a lucky kill rend on the land raider and my warriors leaped into action.
The thing about these bugs, they hit hard and won't run, but with a majority of models in the army with a 4+ armor save, So they started dropping.
The game was called after his obliterators and his chaos lord both failed a host of 2+ armor saves.
Nids ended up pulling off the win this time around in the 6 turns of the game.....but there was a lot of blood spilled so in a way khorne won to.
Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
My most intense games were with 5th. Whackiest games were with 7th.
Whackiest games could be a category all its own! I think my "whackiest games" came in 2nd. I've talked about it before, but I played an Orks vs Ultramarines game with an Armorcast Reiver titan on the marines side and a ton of Orks, a shok-attack gun on the other, as well as a random vortex grenade. Early on, the shok attack gun hit the Riever and rolled the result where the Snotlings get teleported through a warp tunnel and are completely terrified. They come out the other side clinging to the Titan driver's head, terrified and defecating/vomiting all over the place in fear. This caused the Titan to start moving out of control using the scatter dice.
It was about this time that one of us also threw a vortex grenade (I can't remember which army actually brought the grenade but it was probably the Ultramarines player - cheeky SOB that he was ) in the hopes of killing the titan so that it wouldn't stomp both armies to death. The roll was terrible and the grenade scattered an obscene distance in the exact opposite of the intended direction. So the game quickly devolved into a vortex grenade bouncing all over one flank, and a titan out of control on the other, with the two armies in between no longer really fighting, but rather trying to avoid death by vortex/titan stomp.
Good times. You don't have crazy games like that in any other edition but 2nd
flakpanzer wrote: Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
It is actually quite easy.
USRs from 5th take precedent in the rules but otherwise take the points cost from the new edition units and use the 5th edition upgrade stats and points if they existed.
In the case of knights from 7th ed, it is super easy-they are a "light" superheavy like a macharius-so 1 void shield and 2 structure points. as a "superheavy they can split fire as per normal rules in 5th.
Flyer rules from 7th work fine, we just augmented them a bit by using a mix of the 5th edition FW flyer rules to make them a little less durable in some way to balance out hard hard they are to hit. and more immersive. returning the 12" range penalties, needing 6+ to hit (for non AA) and only allowing jump units to assault them is countered by the immobilization result causing a crash instead of a "vector lock"
My most intense games were with 5th. Whackiest games were with 7th.
Whackiest games could be a category all its own! I think my "whackiest games" came in 2nd. I've talked about it before, but I played an Orks vs Ultramarines game with an Armorcast Reiver titan on the marines side and a ton of Orks, a shok-attack gun on the other, as well as a random vortex grenade. Early on, the shok attack gun hit the Riever and rolled the result where the Snotlings get teleported through a warp tunnel and are completely terrified. They come out the other side clinging to the Titan driver's head, terrified and defecating/vomiting all over the place in fear. This caused the Titan to start moving out of control using the scatter dice.
It was about this time that one of us also threw a vortex grenade (I can't remember which army actually brought the grenade but it was probably the Ultramarines player - cheeky SOB that he was ) in the hopes of killing the titan so that it wouldn't stomp both armies to death. The roll was terrible and the grenade scattered an obscene distance in the exact opposite of the intended direction. So the game quickly devolved into a vortex grenade bouncing all over one flank, and a titan out of control on the other, with the two armies in between no longer really fighting, but rather trying to avoid death by vortex/titan stomp.
Good times. You don't have crazy games like that in any other edition but 2nd
If I had the power, I would totally bring back vortex grenades and scatter dice. They were such fun for precisely these reasons, I remember taking out a bunch of Chaos terminators with one but the smug look on my face was wiped off it as it veered back and took out my dreadnaught. Tricksy thing.
flakpanzer wrote: Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
While working on my own rewrite project I discovered that very little actually changed in the rulebook between editions; the army books change a lot more. If you want to back-fit later edition units into 5th you have the Apocalypse flyer/super-heavy rules and flyer/super-heavy stats and pricing to compare them to; roll 6HP back to 2SP and a Knight looks very like the original Brass Scorpion in stats and role, for instance (the Knight gets a directional Invulnerable save, WS/BS4, and D-strength melee, the Brass Scorpion is stuck on S10 melee but has four pretty hardcore guns (flamestorm cannons, demolisher cannon, and the 10 S6/AP3 shots from the tail)).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
aphyon wrote: ...Flyer rules from 7th work fine, we just augmented them a bit by using a mix of the 5th edition FW flyer rules to make them a little less durable in some way to balance out hard hard they are to hit. and more immersive. returning the 12" range penalties, needing 6+ to hit (for non AA) and only allowing jump units to assault them is countered by the immobilization result causing a crash instead of a "vector lock"
I find that GW underpriced and over-armoured their flyers when they made them skimmers in 5e, which left a lot of AA weapons not that useful (S6 AA that can only ever glance all the AV12 flyers floating around?). For my own project I've used a similar hybrid of older and newer flyer rules (movement from 6e/7e, snap-fire only, can't be charged except by people with the "can charge flyers" USR, 12" range penalties, crash on immobilization) and taken AV12 away from almost every flyer that had it.
I find it amazing how much Citadel fethed up implementing stuff that was in the game fairly tamely from Forge World.
Forge World: - Lords of War since 3rd edition; only can be taken in games larger than 2000 points when you can take a second FOC detachment, and consume that entire FOC detachment.
- Flyers since 3rd edition; only really ever armor 10 (sometimes 11 on the front for the REALLY BEEFY flyers). Come in in the movement phase, are fired at by air defense weapons, and depart after engaging targets, because the board is too small to facilitate them maneuvering.
Citadel: - Lords of War since Citadel took over: WOOOOO YEAH WE'RE everywhere! One at more than 2000 points? PFFFFFFFFFT, here's FOUR at 2000, let's build an IK codex and give baneblade formations to guard! In fact, you get a LoW, and you get an LoW, and you get an LoW, and you can use them at any points. Have fun everyone!
- Flyers since Citadel took them over: Armor 12 (because why would they have less armor than a rhino? Obviously an Apache gunship has more armor than a bradley *eyeroll*). Maneuvering with awkward 90-degree turns on a board. Jink is a thing now, because snapfiring at aircraft for non AD weapons wasn't bad enough! Oh and those AD weapons don't change strength at all so HAVE FUN GUYS WOOOO FLYERS
It's like if I carefully hand-sketched the first bit of a beautiful painting, and then my drunk brother wandered into the room and vomited on it before claiming it was his painting all along when some people seemed to comment that the sketch was pretty good if you can see past the vomit.
I find that GW underpriced and over-armoured their flyers when they made them skimmers in 5e
Yeah almost every flyer was AV 10 (even the superheavies like marauders) or 11 except the thunderhawk (12/12/10) and the manta. i unuderstand why they upped the armor when they made them skimmers since they would be so much easier to hit.
Forge World:
- Lords of War since 3rd edition; only can be taken in games larger than 2000 points when you can take a second FOC detachment, and consume that entire FOC detachment.
That was slightly changed. they could be taken in a 2,000 point army but counted as a single special detachment of up to 3 superheavies. of course there were a few differences other than just points alone that made it reasonable. although it was nice there was only 1 restriction on which superheavies you could take-they had to be faction aligned IE you could take any type of imperial superheavy with any imperial force but you could not take say an eldar titan or scorpion tank as an allied force.
1.you effectively had to get player permission to bring a superheavy or flyer so your opponent could know ahead of time to come ready to deal with them(and the AA units were actually quite good-firestorms, flakk trukks, etc....)
2.there was no such thing as "D" weapons as most titan weapons were just bigger versions of normal weapons. the turbo laser destructor was- heavy 2 small blast S9 AP2 and the vulcan mega bolter was an oversized assault cannon-heavy 10 twin-linked S6 AP4 rending.
3.even with split fire they just could not kill that much stuff until baneblades became a thing in plastic. i did a battle against a guy in 4th ed with a warhound titan, i just ignored it most of the game and killed the rest of his rather small conventional army. as 750 points sunk into the warhound (the normal cost up until 8th) made for a small 2k army.
D-weapons weren't that bad originally; they were rare (in the original Apoc book it was Titan-scale weapons only, turbo-lasers and pulsars and things like that), and they auto-penetrated/wounded with ID/+1 on the vehicle damage table. Couple with structure points and Gargantuan Creatures' rule where they only took d3 wounds from attacks that would inflict ID, and D was Titan-scale primary AT that would probably wreck anything smaller than a superheavy you hit but couldn't one-shot anything really big. I think the problem with D was as much making it really easy to get ahold of in 7e as anything else.
Yeah that was after apocalypse came out, before that they were like i said above. but i agree the apocalypse version no cover/auto pen rules doing 1 damage (but it was instant death for non-monsterous creatures) were good and those are the rules we use for D weapons.
We did the same thing because our chaos player is using the 3.5 chaos dex but wanted to bring in his hell drake.
so we took the points cost from the 7th edition rules and then used the 3.5 chaos codex vehicle upgrade rules and stats.
Since it was already demonically possessed it gained the immunity to stunned/shaken rule as per the 3.5 codex then he paid the points to give it parasitic possession so it could repair damaged weapons ( we disallowed mutated hull because adding to the armor was counter to the fact it is a flyer).
I think my favourite editions, at least currently, are Rogue Trader and 3rd
RT because it's an oddball wargame-RPG fusion with neat stuff like robots and powerfields for everyone and a very open feeling to the background, it just isn't as set-in-stone gothic as later editions. I really like the more generic sci-fi stuff. I like space marines in campaign-specific camo! The whole book breathes DIY which is imho a very important part of the hobby. I don't know that it's the smoothest game experience but it's a very EXTRA game. The Realm of Chaos books don't hurt, either. I would really like to see a computer game based on this era because it would take care of a lot, if not outright all, of the weaknesses. There's a reason we invented computers to be good at fiddly book-keeping.
I like 3rd edition mainly because of all the material they did in fact make for it. Cityfight rules, vehicle design rules, the creature feature, generally a fair bunch of good Chapter Approved material. I guess a lot of it was mimicking things you could do with the RT rules that they skipped in 2nd ed but w/e. In hindsight I also appreciate 3rd ed for how important it was to shaping the background. AFAIK there wasn't a lot on the whole deal behind the Horus Heresy before the Index Astartes series. The shift in art style from 2nd ed was major, too. You would hardly think that it was a mere decade between RT and 3rd ed. The tau were introduced, the necrons were majorly expanded upon... Really, there was a lot going on and it's a foundational edition for modern 40k.
flakpanzer wrote: Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
It is actually quite easy.
USRs from 5th take precedent in the rules but otherwise take the points cost from the new edition units and use the 5th edition upgrade stats and points if they existed.
In the case of knights from 7th ed, it is super easy-they are a "light" superheavy like a macharius-so 1 void shield and 2 structure points. as a "superheavy they can split fire as per normal rules in 5th.
Flyer rules from 7th work fine, we just augmented them a bit by using a mix of the 5th edition FW flyer rules to make them a little less durable in some way to balance out hard hard they are to hit. and more immersive. returning the 12" range penalties, needing 6+ to hit (for non AA) and only allowing jump units to assault them is countered by the immobilization result causing a crash instead of a "vector lock"
Didn't they come out with more formal flyer rules in the 5th right before the 6th? I think that it was an Imperial Armour by I certain could be mistaken.
flakpanzer wrote: Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
It is actually quite easy.
USRs from 5th take precedent in the rules but otherwise take the points cost from the new edition units and use the 5th edition upgrade stats and points if they existed.
In the case of knights from 7th ed, it is super easy-they are a "light" superheavy like a macharius-so 1 void shield and 2 structure points. as a "superheavy they can split fire as per normal rules in 5th.
Flyer rules from 7th work fine, we just augmented them a bit by using a mix of the 5th edition FW flyer rules to make them a little less durable in some way to balance out hard hard they are to hit. and more immersive. returning the 12" range penalties, needing 6+ to hit (for non AA) and only allowing jump units to assault them is countered by the immobilization result causing a crash instead of a "vector lock"
Didn't they come out with more formal flyer rules in the 5th right before the 6th? I think that it was an Imperial Armour by I certain could be mistaken.
The initial Flyer type rules were in 3e Imperial Armour. The "modern" Flyer rules set up for a normal-size table (without the range penalty, and with 18-36" movement instead of 36"-infinte movement) came out in 6th.
Did the Imperial Armour rules come out before, after or at the same time as the VDR flyers? Imperial Armour is a definite blind spot in my 40K history, I only broadly know that it had FW stuff in it.
Rosebuddy wrote: Did the Imperial Armour rules come out before, after or at the same time as the VDR flyers? Imperial Armour is a definite blind spot in my 40K history, I only broadly know that it had FW stuff in it.
Around the same time, I think? The original Imperial Armour book was 2000, and the VDR rules were in Chapter Approved 2001, so must have been published in White Dwarf shortly before that.
Didn't they come out with more formal flyer rules in the 5th right before the 6th? I think that it was an Imperial Armour by I certain could be mistaken.
As noted above the original flyer rules came out in 3rd. it wasn't until 6th that they were put into normal (non-permission) main line GW rules for standard game play. and slightly improved in 7th
In 5th they put many flyers into the game as up armored fast skimmers because GW had just brought over many of the FW kits to plastics like the valkyrie.
The good things about the old flyer rules we include in our hybrid combination with 7th. the problem with the old rules is that it really broke the turn flow. in the original FW rules your flyers arrive during your opponents movement phase, he then gets to dedicate shooting at them and then on your next turn they get to return fire/finish their attack run(for bombs and the like).
great work! now you need some killer bases to put them on. secret weapon are eventually coming out with the injected color bases but i also really love the micro art scenics if you don't mind a bit of extra painting
They have the regular wraithstone for normal eldar but perhaps dark temple may be more in line with your minis.
aphyon wrote: great work! now you need some killer bases to put them on. secret weapon are eventually coming out with the injected color bases but i also really love the micro art scenics if you don't mind a bit of extra painting
They have the regular wraithstone for normal eldar but perhaps dark temple may be more in line with your minis.
I'm familiar with their stuff, have a bunch myself for other games. Nope, these guys are goblin green only, as are their soon to be painted BT buddies.
aphyon wrote: great work! now you need some killer bases to put them on. secret weapon are eventually coming out with the injected color bases but i also really love the micro art scenics if you don't mind a bit of extra painting
They have the regular wraithstone for normal eldar but perhaps dark temple may be more in line with your minis.
I'm familiar with their stuff, have a bunch myself for other games. Nope, these guys are goblin green only, as are their soon to be painted BT buddies.
May have something to do with this:
Brings a tear to my eye every time I see that box. Even better when I see people who weren't even alive when that set was released who are actively chasing down the contents.
BaconCatBug wrote:I find your lack of flock disturbing.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sand/paint green/drybrush bone or yellow method, it's literally what they advise in the intro to the 3e rulebook. But I'll admit the camera flash is not doing it any favours.
Ktulhut wrote: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sand/paint green/drybrush bone or yellow method, it's literally what they advise in the intro to the 3e rulebook. But I'll admit the camera flash is not doing it any favours.
Goblin Green bases with Green Flock is the One True Basing Method. Anything else is HERESY!
flakpanzer wrote: Really appreciate that people are still playing and enjoying older editions.
I would love to take some of the units from and later editions (some flyers and even Knights), and try and integrate them back to 5th edition. Having just gotten back into trying to play 5th, I don't think I have the overall familiarity with the system differences to do so. At least not yet.
It is actually quite easy.
USRs from 5th take precedent in the rules but otherwise take the points cost from the new edition units and use the 5th edition upgrade stats and points if they existed.
In the case of knights from 7th ed, it is super easy-they are a "light" superheavy like a macharius-so 1 void shield and 2 structure points. as a "superheavy they can split fire as per normal rules in 5th.
Flyer rules from 7th work fine, we just augmented them a bit by using a mix of the 5th edition FW flyer rules to make them a little less durable in some way to balance out hard hard they are to hit. and more immersive. returning the 12" range penalties, needing 6+ to hit (for non AA) and only allowing jump units to assault them is countered by the immobilization result causing a crash instead of a "vector lock"
Didn't they come out with more formal flyer rules in the 5th right before the 6th? I think that it was an Imperial Armour by I certain could be mistaken.
The initial Flyer type rules were in 3e Imperial Armour. The "modern" Flyer rules set up for a normal-size table (without the range penalty, and with 18-36" movement instead of 36"-infinte movement) came out in 6th.
I am sure that most of our memories are hazy from that time, but here is what I remember. Blood Angels got their Storm Raven sometime between the IG book and the 6th edition, then about a year ahead of the new edition there was either an IA that had the new Space Marine Storm Talon's and Storm Raven's, or there may have been an errata because I seem to recall that those two were available for sale before the 6th dropped. Those two flyers were old news, and everyone was all a tither about how we now have flack missiles to use for flyers. I did want to ask what exactly was the main difference in rules between the older flyer rules and the 6th, which is briefly discussed, but I though that there was an iteration in between what you read in the IA books and what you see in the 6th.
On another note, I do like the general rule philosophy that aphyon is suggesting. Some good ideas there.
TinyLegions wrote: ...I am sure that most of our memories are hazy from that time, but here is what I remember. Blood Angels got their Storm Raven sometime between the IG book and the 6th edition, then about a year ahead of the new edition there was either an IA that had the new Space Marine Storm Talon's and Storm Raven's, or there may have been an errata because I seem to recall that those two were available for sale before the 6th dropped. Those two flyers were old news, and everyone was all a tither about how we now have flack missiles to use for flyers. I did want to ask what exactly was the main difference in rules between the older flyer rules and the 6th, which is briefly discussed, but I though that there was an iteration in between what you read in the IA books and what you see in the 6th.
On another note, I do like the general rule philosophy that aphyon is suggesting. Some good ideas there.
I don't think there were intermediate steps; it went straight from Apocalypse to 6e. The Stormraven was released for GK/BA in 5th as a Fast Skimmer (which is why it has plastic GK/BA icons in the kit), but got put in the SM book in 6th. The Storm Talon didn't exist before 6th. You may be thinking of Imperial Armour Aeronautica, which was a patch book released in early 6th to bring Forge World aircraft and AA units into line with the 6e standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: ...Brings a tear to my eye every time I see that box. Even better when I see people who weren't even alive when that set was released who are actively chasing down the contents...
People actively chase down classic Dark Eldar? I had a bunch of those minis back in the day, and I dearly hope to never see anything so flimsy ever again.
TinyLegions wrote: I am sure that most of our memories are hazy from that time, but here is what I remember. Blood Angels got their Storm Raven sometime between the IG book and the 6th edition, then about a year ahead of the new edition there was either an IA that had the new Space Marine Storm Talon's and Storm Raven's, or there may have been an errata because I seem to recall that those two were available for sale before the 6th dropped
Blood Angels and Grey Knights had storm ravens in their 5e codex (and 5e necrons had night scythes and doom scythes).
The June 2012 white dwarf had rules for the Stormtalon and three ork flyers. They were all fast skimmers in 5e but released right before 6e.
TinyLegions wrote: ...I am sure that most of our memories are hazy from that time, but here is what I remember. Blood Angels got their Storm Raven sometime between the IG book and the 6th edition, then about a year ahead of the new edition there was either an IA that had the new Space Marine Storm Talon's and Storm Raven's, or there may have been an errata because I seem to recall that those two were available for sale before the 6th dropped. Those two flyers were old news, and everyone was all a tither about how we now have flack missiles to use for flyers. I did want to ask what exactly was the main difference in rules between the older flyer rules and the 6th, which is briefly discussed, but I though that there was an iteration in between what you read in the IA books and what you see in the 6th.
On another note, I do like the general rule philosophy that aphyon is suggesting. Some good ideas there.
I don't think there were intermediate steps; it went straight from Apocalypse to 6e. The Stormraven was released for GK/BA in 5th as a Fast Skimmer (which is why it has plastic GK/BA icons in the kit), but got put in the SM book in 6th. The Storm Talon didn't exist before 6th. You may be thinking of Imperial Armour Aeronautica, which was a patch book released in early 6th to bring Forge World aircraft and AA units into line with the 6e standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: ...Brings a tear to my eye every time I see that box. Even better when I see people who weren't even alive when that set was released who are actively chasing down the contents...
People actively chase down classic Dark Eldar? I had a bunch of those minis back in the day, and I dearly hope to never see anything so flimsy ever again.
More the book and cheat sheets. Terrain is nice as well
On another note, I do like the general rule philosophy that aphyon is suggesting. Some good ideas there.
I know there are a number of players who hate the fact that flyers and superheavies are in the normal sized game. in those cases you could always go back to treating, the aircraft at least, as fast skimmers. but i think it really takes away from what it adds to the game. i like the inclusion of dedicated AA platforms that leads to my next point.
FWs original premise that you "get permission/give your opponent a heads up" that you want to bring flyers/super heavies was the right approach for casual play environments. you still needed to have an answer for them even if they were not as powerful/durable as they became in later editions (saw a guard rough rider squad with demo charged take out a baneblade in a single assault with the old superheavy damage table from 5th/apocalypse MKI)
Bringing back a bit of that vulnerability in conjunction with the newer rules seemed like a fair balance to our group.
i like the inclusion of dedicated AA platforms that leads to my next point.
That was always a tricky one from 6th onwards with flyers and superheavies. 3-5e was paper-scissors-stone, whereas 6e onwards was a much more unevenly distributed rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock - higher potential to guess wrong and fail at the listbuilding stage.
TinyLegions wrote: ...I am sure that most of our memories are hazy from that time, but here is what I remember. Blood Angels got their Storm Raven sometime between the IG book and the 6th edition, then about a year ahead of the new edition there was either an IA that had the new Space Marine Storm Talon's and Storm Raven's, or there may have been an errata because I seem to recall that those two were available for sale before the 6th dropped. Those two flyers were old news, and everyone was all a tither about how we now have flack missiles to use for flyers. I did want to ask what exactly was the main difference in rules between the older flyer rules and the 6th, which is briefly discussed, but I though that there was an iteration in between what you read in the IA books and what you see in the 6th.
On another note, I do like the general rule philosophy that aphyon is suggesting. Some good ideas there.
I don't think there were intermediate steps; it went straight from Apocalypse to 6e. The Stormraven was released for GK/BA in 5th as a Fast Skimmer (which is why it has plastic GK/BA icons in the kit), but got put in the SM book in 6th. The Storm Talon didn't exist before 6th. You may be thinking of Imperial Armour Aeronautica, which was a patch book released in early 6th to bring Forge World aircraft and AA units into line with the 6e standard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: ...Brings a tear to my eye every time I see that box. Even better when I see people who weren't even alive when that set was released who are actively chasing down the contents...
People actively chase down classic Dark Eldar? I had a bunch of those minis back in the day, and I dearly hope to never see anything so flimsy ever again.
That may be what I am thinking about. I do know that you don't see official flyer rules for Space Marines until the 6th, and what I was thinking was an IA book.
aphyon wrote: i like the inclusion of dedicated AA platforms that leads to my next point.
That was always a tricky one from 6th onwards with flyers and superheavies. 3-5e was paper-scissors-stone, whereas 6e onwards was a much more unevenly distributed rock-paper-scissors-lizard-spock - higher potential to guess wrong and fail at the listbuilding stage.
Sometimes. To fix it you'd want to reduce superheavies' invulnerability to anti-armour tactics (make damage results do something to them, for instance), introduce more dual-purpose AA platforms so you can take an AA tool that doesn't handicap you if the other guy doesn't take any planes (free flakk missiles for MLs, more things like the Helical Targeting Array on Dreadnaughts), weaken planes' defenses so you can engage them more effectively with more weapons, restrict the use of superheavies in small games via the 30k 25% rule, and be very careful about introducing spammable cheap superheavies with Invulnerable saves (dump the Knights Codex and stick them in AdMech as a LoW).
(My signature has a more detailed link to my attempt at implementing this.)
i don't think knights are that much of a problem if you use the old superheavy damage chart with 2 structure points and replace the invul with a single void shield (AV12, 5+ regeneration). it would bring them into line with the other baby superheavies like the macharius at roughly the same points level.
The AA problem is also solved when you go back to letting those dedicated AA units decide on which mode they are firing(air VS ground) at the start of the shooting phase....and yes flakk missiles should not cost extra any more than having to pay more for krak VS frag.
aphyon wrote: i don't think knights are that much of a problem if you use the old superheavy damage chart with 2 structure points and replace the invul with a single void shield (AV12, 5+ regeneration). it would bring them into line with the other baby superheavies like the macharius at roughly the same points level...
I like the directional nature of the ion shield, though. It forces you to spread out and maneuver, and requires the Knight be cautious about just suicide running at people and exposing itself.
Has anyone here got any 2nd edition projects on the go?
After chatting on the forum and looking at some old White Dwarfs I've dragged my old rulebooks out and dusted them off. It is a very grognard thing to say but probably the most excited I have been about 40k since I played some pre-heresy events (which I think must have been 5th or 6th edition) about a decade ago!
Have got hold of a few old Eldar Dark Reapers (that will need a paint stripper bath) and might have a go at an Eldar army - all metal ofc - a dream of mine since I was a teenager.
Just need a copy of the codex (not one I have ever owned) that is a reasonable price!
Pacific wrote: Has anyone here got any 2nd edition projects on the go?
After chatting on the forum and looking at some old White Dwarfs I've dragged my old rulebooks out and dusted them off. It is a very grognard thing to say but probably the most excited I have been about 40k since I played some pre-heresy events (which I think must have been 5th or 6th edition) about a decade ago!
Have got hold of a few old Eldar Dark Reapers (that will need a paint stripper bath) and might have a go at an Eldar army - all metal ofc - a dream of mine since I was a teenager.
Just need a copy of the codex (not one I have ever owned) that is a reasonable price!
Closest I've got rules-wise is modifying N17 to make a 40k skirmish game, but that's less finished than my other Oldhammer project.
Man that de force would just get rolled by that speeder especially and it usually devolved into whipping eachother with the little red rulers, which hurt like a bitch.
slip wrote: Man that de force would just get rolled by that speeder especially and it usually devolved into whipping eachother with the little red rulers, which hurt like a bitch.
Two squads of Warriors with two Splinter Cannons each, that Speeder is toast. Anyone who understands where the true strengths of the Dark Eldar lie are truly tough opponents.
Pacific wrote: Has anyone here got any 2nd edition projects on the go?
The old 'battle bible' was a complete 2nd edition reference.
House rules required.
Thanks yes I have the Battle Bible, but I love reading through the Codex for the background and painted mini picks.
Was also listening to the Crown of Command podcast where they were talking about the 'DBAD' (don't be a d*** ) ruleset - sounds pretty interesting. I mean at this stage of the game you probably wouldn't do the whole polymorph assassin in terminator armour thing but it's just some limitations around characters to make the game less 'hero hammer' - max 2 wound characters for example, sounded pretty interesting.
Reviewing old stuff from 7th, I came across an unusual rule interaction that just seemed to have edgecase written all over it.
Should a vehicle performing a Tank Shock end its movement 'atop' a Swooping Flying Monstrous Creature, or a Zooming Flyer, you instead move the vehicle the 'shortest distance' needed to be away from the flyer, almost as if though the vehicle itself had been displaced by a Tank Shock but without any other stipulations about coherency, not being on top of other units, etc.
This is one of those 'haha-cute' sort of interactions with the rules, except in the case of certain unusual combinatorics. I am of course, talking about the Genestealer Cult Goliath Rockgrinder and its ability to inflict D3 S10 AP 2 hits via Tank Shock, and the ability to take Flyrants as Allies of Convenience. See, Zoom your Flyrant about 9.6" in front of the Rockgrinder and the moment it does a Tank Shock, it gains a few extra inches of movement to perhaps catch an enemy off-guard.
Now, the real lolwat could be what happens when you use two Flyrants (or Valkyries/Vendettas if you use allied Guardsmen) to accelerate a Rockgrinder's Tank Shock move. In a form of a retroactive "YMDC", you could end up with a situation where the 'shortest distance' to clear the first Flyrant puts the Rockgrinder in contact with the second Flyrant, thus needing to displace the Rockgrinder the shortest distance needed to clear it.
Worst-case scenario is that the game breaks as the Rockgrinder gets trapped in an infinite loop of displacement between the two Flyrants. However, you the player hopefully know a little more about what you are doing, and so will instead set up the Flyrants at diagonals, such that displacement of the Rockgrinder will be accelerated by both Flyrants for a truly inspiring ride.
That said, the effects of Tank Shock only apply once the vehicle reaches its final position. You could not, for example, Tank Shock an enemy unit 1.1" away from your Flyrant, clip a few hits on it, then displace your Goliath to clip a few more hits on another unit. That said and done, it's impressive that the rules properly handled this unorthodox rules interaction, however unintentional it was.
Essentially yes. The key thing was that a Tank Shock is not declared 'against a unit', so much as it's 'pick a direction, and how fast you want to move'. This loverly MSPaint example shows what would happen when a Rockgrinder does this, as its 'center' ends up closer to the opposite end of the Flyrant. Mind, the Rockgrinder is about 4.74 inches in length, and you have to displace it 1" away from the enemy flyer, so you're gaining about an extra 3.3 inches out of this (less 'per' Flyrant if you wish to use multiple Flyrants at diagonals). It's still less threat range than a Dreadnought's Multimelta, but every inch counts when it comes to drilling an unsuspecting opponent.
Up until a few months ago, I had all of my 3rd ed books.
I gave the lot away when a local club member wanted to get back to "his roots" with it (he was one of those kids who started with 3rd in High School. I was just about to hit my 30s when 3rd came out).
Rulebook, cheat cards, templates, whippy sticks and about 14 codices. I was helping to run tourneys back in those days, so I needed to know the armies.
I've still got my rulebook and codices for 5th ed (but those are limited to my eldar, my sm and my GK). Going to be playing some retrohammer 5th in the new year. Eldar v CSM.
My club also usually does a 2nd ed day early in the year. With the exception of a couple of pieces, my eldar can still quite easily be used for 2nd ed (no night-spinner or shadow weavers, but the falcon, fireprism, d- and v- cannons are fine to use as is.)
chromedog wrote: Up until a few months ago, I had all of my 3rd ed books.
I gave the lot away when a local club member wanted to get back to "his roots" with it (he was one of those kids who started with 3rd in High School. I was just about to hit my 30s when 3rd came out).
Rulebook, cheat cards, templates, whippy sticks and about 14 codices. I was helping to run tourneys back in those days, so I needed to know the armies.
I've still got my rulebook and codices for 5th ed (but those are limited to my eldar, my sm and my GK). Going to be playing some retrohammer 5th in the new year. Eldar v CSM.
My club also usually does a 2nd ed day early in the year. With the exception of a couple of pieces, my eldar can still quite easily be used for 2nd ed (no night-spinner or shadow weavers, but the falcon, fireprism, d- and v- cannons are fine to use as is.)
...
Why oh why can't I find someone with a free stockpile like that? I still have MORE than a few 3rd Ed. books to chase down...
My club also usually does a 2nd ed day early in the year. With the exception of a couple of pieces, my eldar can still quite easily be used for 2nd ed (no night-spinner or shadow weavers, but the falcon, fireprism, d- and v- cannons are fine to use as is.)
I think the original (late 1st edition?) Eldar are possibly the only GW range that still stand up well compared to their later incarnations. They are just absolutely beautiful sculpts.
WD127 was my first ever issue and the lore in there for the Eldar is just amazing, really fleshed out the whole race and in many ways I don't think that background has changed much even today.
There was quite a cool tribute that Gav Thorpe wrote about on his blog, is worth a read and it also has scans to pages of WD127 for anyone that hasn't had a chance to look at it - has all the original artwork, background and a fantastic story that covered a battle of Eldar against Chaos.
Pacific wrote: Has anyone here got any 2nd edition projects on the go?
The old 'battle bible' was a complete 2nd edition reference.
House rules required.
Thanks yes I have the Battle Bible, but I love reading through the Codex for the background and painted mini picks.
Was also listening to the Crown of Command podcast where they were talking about the 'DBAD' (don't be a d*** ) ruleset - sounds pretty interesting. I mean at this stage of the game you probably wouldn't do the whole polymorph assassin in terminator armour thing but it's just some limitations around characters to make the game less 'hero hammer' - max 2 wound characters for example, sounded pretty interesting.
You might want to leave your Lvl4 psykers at home but characters with a lot of wounds are no problem because even a heavy bolter does D4 damage.
Remember Marine Commanders looking super indestructible until they take a multi-melta to the chest
Perhaps a better limit is around max pts spend on wargear and a few other items being removed - the virus outbreak strategy card for example and vortex grenade (although the latter would cost a lot of points if you did have a wargear pts limit, not leaving enough for a displacement field etc.)
Remember Marine Commanders looking super indestructible until they take a multi-melta to the chest
Perhaps a better limit is around max pts spend on wargear and a few other items being removed - the virus outbreak strategy card for example and vortex grenade (although the latter would cost a lot of points if you did have a wargear pts limit, not leaving enough for a displacement field etc.)
Even virus outbreak & grenade had limits. Necrons & Tyranids were immune and Orks could field a Medi-Squig to give each model a 2+ save vs. the effect.
Other factions had access to power armour, similar or better gear which also negated the effects of the virus.
And what about the remaining factions which haven't been mentioned so far? Well, those were susceptible but 2nd was a WHOLE different animal than all following editions. The model count was FAR lower so that sensible positioning (social distancing) could limit the effects of the virus.
Also remember that the Outbreak card had to be randomly drawn and that the grenade couldn't be stuffed into a grenade launcher for easy delivery.
There were some other funky things with 2nd ed, that a cursory analysis of the rules would let one find much amusement with.
One of the big ones was the fact that vehicles had crew stats, and though Techmarines/equivalents could act as 'replacement' crew, they could not actually start the game crewing said vehicles; this was sadly somewhat of a shame when it came to wanting to use them for their superior BS/ability to provide Wargear Card assistance to their rides, but it was a blessing in disguise considering how easy it was for certain weapons to kill vehicle crew...
Gate of Infinity was not an insta-teleport but placed two portals down, which either player could use. Shotguns inflicted a 1" push-back...though utterly impractical to pull off in a game, you 'could' theoretically go Aperture Science on Kharn the Betrayer and Shotgun him through one Gate of Infinity, to another one that exited from a really tall cathedral spire...splaaaaaaat.
For folks who really wanted to live out their Captain Falcon fantasies, Land Speeder crew had access to the "assault weapon" list, which combined with Hit&Run rules allowed a Land Speeder to pull off the drive-by Power Fist...a feature which was sadly removed from 3rd ed and never seen since.
MagicJuggler wrote: ...For folks who really wanted to live out their Captain Falcon fantasies, Land Speeder crew had access to the "assault weapon" list, which combined with Hit&Run rules allowed a Land Speeder to pull off the drive-by Power Fist...a feature which was sadly removed from 3rd ed and never seen since.
Sammael's speeder kind of did that, but it's always disappointed me that even when they added the Chariot type for melee-capable vehicles in later editions they never bothered to give it to Land Speeders.
The master of the ravenwing speeder drive by was a great bit of fun(along with the other wargear). the 3.5 mini dex is still my favorite way to play pure ravenwing or deathwing.
Remember Marine Commanders looking super indestructible until they take a multi-melta to the chest
Perhaps a better limit is around max pts spend on wargear and a few other items being removed - the virus outbreak strategy card for example and vortex grenade (although the latter would cost a lot of points if you did have a wargear pts limit, not leaving enough for a displacement field etc.)
Even virus outbreak & grenade had limits. Necrons & Tyranids were immune and Orks could field a Medi-Squig to give each model a 2+ save vs. the effect.
Other factions had access to power armour, similar or better gear which also negated the effects of the virus.
And what about the remaining factions which haven't been mentioned so far? Well, those were susceptible but 2nd was a WHOLE different animal than all following editions. The model count was FAR lower so that sensible positioning (social distancing) could limit the effects of the virus.
Also remember that the Outbreak card had to be randomly drawn and that the grenade couldn't be stuffed into a grenade launcher for easy delivery.
Yes but you could easily still have 60-70 miniatures on the board with Orks and infantry-heavy Imperial Guard. I admit I only saw someone 'tabled' by it once (good chunk of the army gone on 1st turn, let's start again) but there was no real point in it at all. And like you say with the high propensity of Marine armies, Tyranids being immune a lot of the time it was useless anyway.
I actually remember Andy Chambers writing an "I'm so sorry" message in a White Dwarf about the card. Almost like a newspaper editorial stating a mistake they had made, funny stuff
MagicJuggler wrote:There were some other funky things with 2nd ed, that a cursory analysis of the rules would let one find much amusement with.
One of the big ones was the fact that vehicles had crew stats, and though Techmarines/equivalents could act as 'replacement' crew, they could not actually start the game crewing said vehicles; this was sadly somewhat of a shame when it came to wanting to use them for their superior BS/ability to provide Wargear Card assistance to their rides, but it was a blessing in disguise considering how easy it was for certain weapons to kill vehicle crew...
Gate of Infinity was not an insta-teleport but placed two portals down, which either player could use. Shotguns inflicted a 1" push-back...though utterly impractical to pull off in a game, you 'could' theoretically go Aperture Science on Kharn the Betrayer and Shotgun him through one Gate of Infinity, to another one that exited from a really tall cathedral spire...splaaaaaaat.
That's really hilarious about the gate!
Good point about vehicle crew, remember that being really cool with a techmarine jumping into a rhino when the crew had been wiped out by some means (maybe a Harlequin's kiss).
Never give an Ork dreadnought an Orky power field as there was a chance it would fry the gretchin inside (much less of a problem for a battlewagon!)
I got hold of a handful of original, Jes Goodwin sculpt Dark Reapers in a really good deal on the 'Bay. A cleanup job of dried glue (guess the kid that owned it must have followed my method of gumming stuff in place with enough super glue until it sticks, so it ends up looking like the walls of an Alien habitat!) and then bath in paint stripper. Loved painting it, think the Eldar are probably the only range that you can say (hand on heart) that still look at least as good as the current ranges, if not better.
Really want to make an army up of these guys, something I wanted to do as a teenager but didn't have the money. Hopefully go for a 2nd edition force, should be no more than 25-30 miniatures so will be quite doable.
I am waiting for vanguard to do wraithguard in epic scale so i can do a proper 4th ed iyanden army without killing my bank account. he already has released wave serpents, falcons/prisms, wraith seers etc... to build the list.
I am thinking about a full FOC with 6X10 troop wraithguard, 3X5 in serpents for the elites all led by wraith seers, a couple farseers on bikes for HQs with 2 fire prisms/ 1 fire storm backing them up,
No clue on the 3 fast choices i was thinking the wasp class war walker was fast since it jumps but it is an elite.....guess i can always keep my fingers crossed for them to eventually get around to hornets or planes in 6mm.
All my recent 40K projects have really switched over to epic scale now as i have everything i need to play 5th ed in 28mm scale. after having built 6mm versions of my dream armies- elysians, DKOK armored company, a massive infantry admech force, and my salamanders for a fraction of what it would cost for a single 2k army in normal scale for all of that, i am pretty addicted to going small.
I miss the old story-based equipment from the Witch Hunter/ Daemon Hunter dexes- stuff like excrutiators, psyocula, hexagrammatic wards, etc. Also the retinue options Inquisitors lost.
Some of this stuff has been retained in spirit, becoming a strat or a WL trait or something; but somehow it always felt more tangible as equipment.
Having said all that though, while I do get nostalgic for elements of previous editions, I've been waiting for Crusade since 1989, and now that it's here, I could never go back to playing disconnected games and static armies that don't grow.
Well that's not exactly correct, 40K has always had a "grow your army" gameplay scene because lets face it it takes a while to build up to a full 1,500 + point level army-but it wasn't an official game mode (well aside from the 4th ed rulebook that had rules for kill team and combat patrols etc...)., more something championed by game clubs/leagues.
There was a lot more granular detail of individual miniatures within a unit (certainly in 2nd edition). As such a 'combat patrol' game of 500pts and even just a few squads was perfectly playable and good fun.
As the miniature count and level of abstraction increased over later editions (to the point where really you could put units on big bases and have a shared wound count) then you lose that detail and the individual unit level - hence the need for other forms of game, emergence of Kill Team and things like that.
Pacific wrote: There was a lot more granular detail of individual miniatures within a unit (certainly in 2nd edition). As such a 'combat patrol' game of 500pts and even just a few squads was perfectly playable and good fun.
As the miniature count and level of abstraction increased over later editions (to the point where really you could put units on big bases and have a shared wound count) then you lose that detail and the individual unit level - hence the need for other forms of game, emergence of Kill Team and things like that.
Indeed. Take Rogue Trader for example, a Marine squad of 10 could be split TWICE into 4 units of 2-3 models. This takes the game almost into Kill Team / Necromunda territory.
I still long for a modern 40K ruleset which is optimized for combat patrol sized games like 2nd ed. That's the sweetspot for me. Killteam is _almost_ there, when played @ 150pts but still lacks vehicles.
tauist i suggest you get a hold of the 4th ed main rulebook if that's what your after. they have combat patrol missions.
It is 250 points and effectively kill teams with light vehicles. of combined front/side/rear armor 33(was 32 until the new necron vehicles came out in 5th so we adjusted it since all necron vehicles are base 11/11/11 thus not allowing them to take any vehicles)
So you can bring things like land speeders (AV 10/10/10=30) chimeras (AV 12/10/10=32) etc...
It really makes the light vehicles shine since they are not outdone by the big hitters.
aphyon wrote: Well great news finally got to get together for some games again and got a 2k salamanders VS crimson fists battle with our hybrid 5th ed
I was running a test list with a fully mechanized force VS a sternguard heavy list (he forgot to put his scouts out)
[snip]
The battle was played on my new forges of mars mat with my new terrain.
[snip]
Two Comments. I like what your opponent is doing with his CF color scheme. That is some awesome terrain as well. I would like to see a batrep if you are able.
Uh, well i think i can remember enough to give you a super short version.
To start off with we haven't played any games at all in a couple months due to new lockdowns and he specifically hasn't played this army in even longer (i think the last 5th ed 40K game that he did was a battle against khorne with his iron warriors).
His list is more focused on killing infantry so it was a bit of a struggle for him against what i was running, normally i run more of an air cav list but i wrote this one up as an alternate to face off against the previously mentioned khorne player as he tends to play mechanized.
His list off the top of my head-
.pedro kantor(makes his sternguard scoring and the army stubborn)
.cato sicarius
.X2 las/melta tac squads
.X1 10 man scout snipers(he forgot them this game)
.X2 sternguard squads with X2 heavy flamer and 8 combi-meltas
.X2 drop pods
.land raider redeemer
My list was-
.master of the forge w/4 servitor
.brey'arth ashmantle in a lucius drop pod
.scout squad in a LS storm
.tac squad-fist flamer in a las.plas razorback
.ironclad dread talon(troops choice-badab war special formation-not that it matter much since i could have also taken them as elites in this list.)
.land speeder typhoon
.land raider achillies
..vengence weapons battery (automated BS2 battle cannon) fortification
Since we were shaking the rust off we just decided to do a "standard" 12" deployment maelstrom of battle (kill each other) with no objectives. This game came down to hot and cold dice really.
He seized and went first but his first sternguard squad scattered wide and was out of optimal melta range to hurt the bunker. breyarth dropped on his land raider and immobilised it on his side of the table(this is pretty much where he considered the game a loss since it always seems he fails if his land raider can't get at least halfway across the table). i pretty well kept him there to tie up pedro and the terminators the entire game(he did loose an arm and get immobilized but he did the job).
the real tough nut to crack of course was my land raider (and it should be at 300+ points) since it had armored ceramite and feramatic unvulnrability(reduces damage results by 1) his sternguard had to switch focus to my ironclads/ leaving the las cannons to try and kill it. he hit it several times but i either made my cover saves, or the result was a stunner/shaken. with the POTMS and the fact we use 7th ed snapfire rules it was still participating.
The battle cannon only ever had 1 good shot and killed half a tac squad but i had stupid luck with the thunderfire cannon(achillies) scoring 17 hits on my first volley decimating most of the other tac squad(he was rolling statistically off with many hot/cold 1s and 6s). the sternguard were the only things that really hurt me as they dropped close and zapped 2 of my ironclads. i think he called it on turn 4 or 5
at that point he had lost both tac squads, pedro, 2 terminators, 1 and 1/2 sternguard squads and the fact he forgot about his snipers.(didn't realize this till after the game was over)
My losses were the damage to brey'arth a shaken typhoon and 2 dead ironclads, my scouts didn't do much as they outflanked on the empty side of the table and just had to try and hot foot it back to where the battle was.
Now if i had been facing his iron warriors or his jakero inquisiiton list he would have likely tabled me quite easily.
i finally got in a long awaited battle VS the horde of greenskins in our hybrid 5th ed game.,
The ork player wrote up a silly horde list but only came up with 1,600 points as his army is still under construction
We ended up doing a 12" deployment 3 objective game.
At the beginning it looked like so
Near the end it looked more like this
Game went to turn 6 with orks scrapping by with a narrow but clear victory. with only a wounded gazkull, 2 nobs, and 2 boys left on the table... sitting on all the objectives. if i had that last turn i likely would have turned back the green tide since i was still rolling with my land raider achillies + master of the forge/servitor squad, vengeance battlecannon battery, and 2 tactical marines.(well and an immobilized ironclad but it wasn't like he was going to add much). great game had by all with happy orks and Gaz rolling invul saves like a BOSS! (made five 5++ saves fighting dreadnoughts)
P.S. the FOW tanks were representing his zzap guns and grot crews he had written into the list but forgot to bring with him.
I thought I'd mention here that the full re-write of ProHammer, called ProHammer: Classic has launched, for all of you old hammer fans.
With this version, I've provided a complete rulebook, written in a more concise format (like the 8th/9th edition rules). It includes everything and the goal is to not have to reference an old rulebook. I'm still working on adding a new set of custom missions, but for now you can use missions from whatever edition you like (we've been using the 9th edition open war deck most recently).
Anyway, I've played a good number of games over the past couple months (using tabletop simulator) using this ruleset and it's gone over quite well. We've had some great games and it's nice to have a complete ruleset that brings out the best of the old editions.
Please let me know if you have questions, or feedback, or suggestions. Game on!
Tonight was a bit of an undertaking in the adventures of 5th edition. last weekend one of our regular choas players had some fun with a 2,500 point game and wanted to put his entire army on the table.....so we set up an apocalypse level 5,700 point game
this is what it looked like
this is the chaos khorne force
This was my salamander successor/grey knight allied force with a little superheavy support, putting a half company of marines on the table.
I only had to leave out 3 models from my entire collection related to this army-razor back, macharius, warhound titan.
This is how things looked at setup
One can kind of follow the flow of the battle with the next few pictures as the khorne forces tried to push across the table while i did my best to slow or stop them. of the 4 assassins i brought the culexus died right away without doing much however the vindicare and surprisingly the eversore were doing work....in fact the eversore surprisingly survived the entire game without blowing himself up.
At this level of gameplay stuff was dying left and right.
We ended up wrapping things up after the first half of turn 5 as they wanted to get a BFG game in. the salamanders were starting to turn things around near the end but who knows where the battle would have gone had a couple more turns been played.
Did a 2k game of ravenwing VS chaos (khorne) using the 3rd and 3.5 dexes in the 5th ed rules set we use.
table set up was-
.4 objectives
.mysterious objectives (6th)
.mysterious terrain(6th)
.set up end to end
The game was a rough on for the emperors angels. even with azreal throwing his weight into the battle.
turn 1 saw little damage done to either side, however turn 2 was decidedly in the favor of the forces of chaos. i was having some really bad dice rolls and was loosing alot more than i was returning.
In fact i would say the terrain was doing more to hurt the traitors than i was (razorwing nests/exploding objectives etc..)
By the end i was down to azrael and his deathwing command squad, the Angelis Imperator his personal command land raider prometheus, an armless venerable dread and the master of the ravenwing driving his land speeder that had all the guns ripped off so he was forced into doing sword drive by attacks.
I pulled off a risky gamble at the end of turn 5 (since i went second) hoping for the game not to go on withthe random dice roll, (i was right) contesting 1 of the 3 objectives with the master of the ravenwing, azreal smited a rhino off a second objective with the sword of secrets leaving the chaos forces sitting on a third for a tie game.
We did a special matchup of our hybrid 5th ed game (finally..took 3 weeks to get our schedules together)
the force match up (5th ed rules)
chaos khorne army 3.5 codex VS salamanders space marines 5th codex with grey knight allies 3rd codex.
the special set up for this game was trying to get as many infantry and less used models on the table with limiting vehicles to dreadnoughts.
we also had mysterious terrain rules in play hence the reason for all the trees.
The game was great fun. the marines didn't last long but the GKs did what GKs are supposed to do especially when it was the 2 codexes that were the best designed for fighting each other in any edition GW has every made.
His bloodletters gained sustained assault because the GKs were on the table, but they failed to come in from reserve until turn 4 so they didn't get to come back more than 1 time.
The most epic battle was his contemptor VS my ironclad. they both scored 3 penetraiting hits and blew each other up.
Mezmorki wrote: I thought I'd mention here that the full re-write of ProHammer, called ProHammer: Classic has launched, for all of you old hammer fans.
Mezmorki wrote: I thought I'd mention here that the full re-write of ProHammer, called ProHammer: Classic has launched, for all of you old hammer fans.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Has there been a schism? I would have thought that was Middlehammer.
Haha, yeah that's sorta how I think of it, with 2nd ed and prior being old/classic. I can see 3-5 being "classic" although I sorta don't count 5th. (TLOS-Ward-and proliferation of larger models).
I confess I never played RT myself, but it seems like quite a different beast than 2nd too, requiring a GM. I think RT, rather than being "old" or "classic" is just RT in all its messy glory.
RT the core book required a GM, get to WD 110's onward and it is being played like 2nd ed with no ref, points values from army lists, etc. Get to WD 120+ and the vehicle rules change significantly to a faster playing set of options.
The_Real_Chris wrote: RT the core book required a GM, get to WD 110's onward and it is being played like 2nd ed with no ref, points values from army lists, etc. Get to WD 120+ and the vehicle rules change significantly to a faster playing set of options.
Aphyon: Some great looking games on great terrain as usual.
As far as the Classic/Old hammer bit. When WFB started to disintegrate into AOS. Old hammer was a thing around the website and catered more specifically to 3rd Edition WFB and 2nd Edition 40K. I am sure that if you wanted to talk about any editions later than that the folks in charge of the forums would have no problem with it, but it was not their focus. I started www.classichammer.com for those of us who wanted to focus on a more later edition in the two systems. Our focus is more based on WFB 4th to 6th and 40K 3rd to 5th. We certainly do allow for older editions to be discussed but I do admit that it is not our focus. Likewise I am willing to host newer editions to a point but once again, not the focus. That is where JT and I get the concept of
Classic hammer from.
I thought I'd post some pictures from our latest ProHammer games. 2000 points of Dark Eldar vs. Tau (both using 7th edition rules).
Parameters of the game:
Platform: Tabletop Simulator
Ruleset: ProHammer
Table Setup: We used our randomized terrain generation tool. We rolled up "desert" biome and "industrial" theme - and then draw applicable terrain pieces out of a virtual bag and build the board. Worked really well and made a pretty sweet board (as you can see!).
Mission: Custom ProHammer mission. This was a pipeline secure/destroy mission. There were six pipeline control points. Tau player had to secure pipelines and "isolate from harm" whereas the Dark Eldar had to try and destroy them. In order to secure/destroy a pipeline you have to end your turn with exclusive control within 3" of the pipeline control point with a non-vehicle / non-MC unit, and nominate a model within that the unit to be activator. If the activator is still alive and within 3" of the pipeline point at the start of your next turn (don't need to maintain exclusive control at that point) then the objective is secured. Each point secured or destroyed gets you 3 points. If the game ends in a draw (5-7 turns) then the victor is determined using secondary scoring.
Synopsis:
Turn 1:
Tau got the favorable deployment zone and got in position to quickly secure 2 points on their turn first turn. Most of the DE forces were in reserve (deep strike, webway portals, etc.). The starting DE forces got into position on two points.
Turn 2:
Turn two saw the Tau achieve two objectives and blasting the DE off one of their objectives from range. DE deepstrike forces were solid, and all but one unit landed. Overwatching kroot snipers and broadsuit teams however decimated some of the DE forces, completely board-wiping a unit of wyches! End of Battle Round 2: Tau = 6 points, DE = 3 points.
Turn 3:
This was a pivotal turn. DE was pretty exposed post deepstrike rush, and failed to deliver some of the needed decisive blows last turn. Notably, the Tau commander slipped away from the succubus + Incubi death squad! Gah! Tau return fire was thankfully not as a deadly as it could've been - which meant DE still had a pathway to victory. DE turn brought in a big deep striking unit of wracks + haemonculus that finished off the commander and tied up broadside teams. DE secured another point and got into position for holding a 3rd mid-field. Tau = 9 points, DE = 6 points.
Turn 4 & 5:
The game ended after turn 5 (variable end game length). The final two turns mostly revolved around trying to get DE units into position to secure a 3rd point and tie the game on primary objectives. This might have happened given some creative screening with vehicles, but the Tau Smart Missiles don't need LoS and were able to push the DE models off the point. Unclear whether or not the DE couldn't won based on secondary objectives - it would've been close but I think the Tau would've won that way regardless.
All in all, a close and well fought game. I had some tough decision moments as the DE, particularly with where to deep strike my big unit of Wracks. I could be aggressive and try take the fight to my opponent to kill their leader and tie up other forces, or use them to take that 3rd objective. But taking the objective would probably have meant not doing as much damage to my opponent, leaving me open to counter fire. It was a tough call, and I'm still not sure it was the right one or not. But that's 40K!
Pictures below taken mostly around the 3rd turn:
The critical point is near the center of the board next to the Venom (above the 3 round tank terrain features)
A side show fight in the ruins on one of the board flanks between a unit of scourges + venom + kabalite warriors vs. a Devilfish, gun drone squad, fire team, and a Tau leader. resulted in a close combat fight that kept stalemating each turn and lasting nearly the whole game!
Scourges attempting to push back a big unit of gun drones that were attempting to secure the Tau's 3rd point. Despite having an agonizer and bringing tons of fire to bear, they didn't manage to dislodge them. The drones passed a miraculous Ld test on the point and so didn't fall back, meaning they were still holding the objective next turn and secured it. Gah! The crater to the left of the scourges is where I used to have a Raider + 10 wyches, before it all got annihilated by the Broadside site and Kroot (hiding in the bushes).
View near the center of the table from the DE perspective. Trying to hold the point in the middle while tying down as many enemy units as I can.
I just wanted to mention as well how awesome it is to play 40K on TTS when you get it all setup well. It looks great (IMHO). Sure, you loose out on the physicality of the real game, but there are a number of functional advantages (floating 1st person camera makes LoS easy to determine, ability to save your games and come back to them later, etc.) - plus the huge libraries of models and scenery makes from some immersive gameplay.
Well we were going for a sort desert moon vibe without much atmosphere - hence the bright "sunlight" and starry sky. You can really play around with the lighting settings quite a bit and tailor the look pretty easily.
Mezmorki wrote: Well we were going for a sort desert moon vibe without much atmosphere - hence the bright "sunlight" and starry sky. You can really play around with the lighting settings quite a bit and tailor the look pretty easily.
^nice.
Although technically you might not be able to see the stars, like how in the moon landing pics there are no stars in the sky because the film is exposed for the brightness of the lunar surface. If the ground is lit up as bright as day your eyes might not have the sensitivity to see the stars.
Can't confirm though, I've never been to the moon.
I would have thought one advantage of playing 40k digitally was that you could easily change the bases to match the terrain, rather than having them clash like that.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I would have thought one advantage of playing 40k digitally was that you could easily change the bases to match the terrain, rather than having them clash like that.
Each model has a texture file linked via URL in TTS. You can download that through a browser and then use any imaging software to edit the colors that fall in the base area (photoshop, etc). Then you can reupload the texture and re-link it to the model within TTS. TTS's steam workshop stuff includes cloud storage for uploading things, which is pretty handy.
It's not complicated but you need the right tools, and would need to do it for every model. Probably not worth doing it unless you are making a custom paint scheme at the same time.
After a long wait my craftworld iyanden eldar get their first battle in
Iyanden VS krieg
rule set-index 8th edition (ranges halved)
power level-380
Both sides had 5 superheavies in the battle of elites VS hordes.
This was the deployment
Krieg won the first turn and proceeded to put everything into killing the revenant for obvious reasons.
With the way 8th works i don't start getting invul saves on my superheavies until they start moving, and i obviously had no chance to cast conceal for my farseer. i lost a bit but i paid him back since my planes carry a host of guns including a smaller version of the revanants titan killing guns.
This was the end of turn 1
It turned into a very boody fight with his basic leman russ squads doing the lions share of the lifting after i deleted his basalisks
This was near the end of the game.
Playing in epic scale not only being far cheaper than full scale 40K, really expands the scope of the universe and size of the battles... i lost a titan in the first turn and it wasn't even a major concern, even if i was sad he didn't get to do anything.
I have managed to build every single 40K army i ever wanted to build in the normal game in epic scale-
.mechanicus infantry horde
.elysian
.DKOK armored company
.necron destroyer army
.iyanden wraith host
.salamanders successors airborne/inceptor themed space marines
So i finally gave my "mars" table it's reason to exist in our hybrid 5th ed games.-admech(7th ed) defending the forge from iron warriors(3.5 ed)
We both did a bit of proxying to get up to full points. i've taken to being lazy and using the pre-painted AT-43 minis to fill out my force
Since i was playing the lucius forge world it was good that i had a macharius to throw in there as my superheavy detachment. hopefully DKOK wont notice it is missing and running late for delivery.
By comparison he used a bunch of his crimson fists to stand in as chaos marines.
We were both having some terrible dice luck tonight with below average rolls and templates scattering far and wide.
I made out the better of it when he mis-happed 2 of his 3 obliterator squads to death. (he scattered onto my models both times and rolled double 1s)
Might as well ask this here - maybe someone knows the answer to my question:
I'm looking through the Chaos 3.5 ed dex and the start of the book of chaos section notes that taking units at a given size (i.e. 6 models in a Slaanesh unit) makes them "Favored by the Gods." Does being "favored by the gods" have any actual gameplay effect? If so - where is that specified?
Mezmorki wrote: Might as well ask this here - maybe someone knows the answer to my question:
I'm looking through the Chaos 3.5 ed dex and the start of the book of chaos section notes that taking units at a given size (i.e. 6 models in a Slaanesh unit) makes them "Favored by the Gods." Does being "favored by the gods" have any actual gameplay effect? If so - where is that specified?
Iirc the gameplay advantage for "Favored" units is that they get their Aspiring Champion for free.
No idea where it's stated though! It's only been about 20 years
Finally found it - the free aspiring champs are noted under the specific chapter rules I.E, if you adhere to the Emperor's Children rules, then units with Marks of Slaanesh can take a free aspiring champion.
still, it looks good.
