I haven't been into Warhammer or played Warhammer for about 25 years.
Out of curiosity, I watched a few (very well made fwiw) videos on WH40K lore on YouTube, and it gave me the itch to get back into it.
I have some serious reservations however, and it basically revolves around it all being too blatant a money grab on behalf of GW.
The first one is ... 9th edition. 9th? Are they releasing a new version every 2 years?? So by the time the average person has handed out enough money to Games Workshop and spent enough time painting to actually have completed a real army ... it's time to get a new one. Convenient.
The second is the miniatures ... the move to 32mm minis was pretty underhanded imo. They're not easier to paint ... they're actually more difficult to paint as there's so much more detail crammed into them and each model takes longer to complete to a decent standard (and uses more paint). Why? When we're already struggling for space on a limited sized gaming table? So everyone had to buy new armies of course.
So I do have reservations over the whole nature of Games Workshop and feel I don't want to give them any of my money just on general principle.
However, after 9 editions the rules must be pretty damn solid by now. I can also get a pretty good deal on the "Indomitus" box set that contains two reasonable armies in the box (although I'd want to paint them and that would take me ages).
Are there any other good reasons I should bite the bullet and buy this? Is there any indication it's not simply going to be replaced by WH40K v10 in 18 months time?
It is an entirely different game than what 40K was for the compatible editions (3rd-7th). so if you approach it as a different game with some of the same cosmetic look you may like it.
The game now is heavily influenced by resource mechanic games like magic
There is a list of things i really dislike about it game mechanics wise, but that has been hashed over in many topics here. it is the reason why our gaming group has, like the WHFBs players who have gone back to playing the editions they love the best (usually 6th or 8th). gone back to playing 5th edition with a few house rules.
We all know it is a rules rollercoaster and a cash grab(codex creep has been replaced by edition creep and stratagem creep), it is GW after all. some of us have jumped off the train but still like playing with our 40K minis.
Get into a legacy edition of 40k, Facebook, here, and having friends semi interested would help with this.
You will have an unchanging ruleset, unchanging minis, and since you will have to buy second hand you won't support gw.
Honestly though if you simply not get into marines it seems your army will be fairly stabilized. 9th is a pretty good edition imo and the indom box is a good buy. The only issue is the marine half is only good in 9th right now (not that you couldn't make custom rules for them for a legacy edition).
There are also 3rd party rulesets that you can use the gw minis with, and other si fi game systems. Nothing is keeping you from just saying your games take place in what ever lore you prefer. Imagination is a hell of a characteristic to have. Happy gaming.
I personally share many of your reservations, which is why I play Grimdark Future rather than 40K. But I think 9th is probably pretty decent all told, it has a very positive reception overall, with similar caveats to other editions.
with the pandemic going on and lockdowns not to end very soon I say it is not worth to start it now
main advantage of 40k is that you can easily find pick up games because a lot of people play it
with stores and clubs mostly closed, not many pick up games going on and without that there is no real reason to start that game instead of something else
However, after 9 editions the rules must be pretty damn solid by now.
well, it is more like 9 different games with each having different flaws, rules overall are less solid as by the time you left as we are at the beginning of an Edition (and GW takes half of an Edi to sort things out, than you have ~1-2 years were it works fine and you get a new game with the next Editon starting over again)
A few weeks (or even days ago), I would have tentatively said yes, though frankly the whole CCG with minis game they have morphed it into makes me never want to dive to deep into 40k as it has been infested with tournament tryhards trying to turn it into an esport. Play it with friends for funsies but don't take it seriously.
After the DG codex leaks came out? Nope. Not worth it in the slightest. If you are interested in kitbashing or making your models personal in any way, GW will just gut your army because they are not loyalist SMs.
Id say pass on it and try something else if you haven't, like bolt action or battletech. If you can find an opponent warmaster is still a great ruleset.
So I do have reservations over the whole nature of Games Workshop and feel I don't want to give them any of my money just on general principle.
(...)
However, after 9 editions the rules must be pretty damn solid by now.
HAHAHAHA! If only we were that lucky. Seeing the DG book, nah don't bother. Unless you like marines, they get a free pass on rules. The game can be fun but GW seems to do it's darnest to just frustrate me at every turn, for every step forward they take 2 back, shuffle a bit sideways, make a U-turn and repeat.
Da Boss wrote: I personally share many of your reservations, which is why I play Grimdark Future rather than 40K. But I think 9th is probably pretty decent all told, it has a very positive reception overall, with similar caveats to other editions.
I like how neatly those rules are laid out as a reference. I was dubious how it would play with only two pages of rules, but that appears to be more like a reminder reference to the 16 page Basic Rulebook PDF. Still not a lot of pages!
PieInTheSky wrote: I haven't been into Warhammer or played Warhammer for about 25 years.
Out of curiosity, I watched a few (very well made fwiw) videos on WH40K lore on YouTube, and it gave me the itch to get back into it.
I have some serious reservations however, and it basically revolves around it all being too blatant a money grab on behalf of GW.
The first one is ... 9th edition. 9th? Are they releasing a new version every 2 years?? So by the time the average person has handed out enough money to Games Workshop and spent enough time painting to actually have completed a real army ... it's time to get a new one. Convenient.
The second is the miniatures ... the move to 32mm minis was pretty underhanded imo. They're not easier to paint ... they're actually more difficult to paint as there's so much more detail crammed into them and each model takes longer to complete to a decent standard (and uses more paint). Why? When we're already struggling for space on a limited sized gaming table? So everyone had to buy new armies of course.
So I do have reservations over the whole nature of Games Workshop and feel I don't want to give them any of my money just on general principle.
However, after 9 editions the rules must be pretty damn solid by now. I can also get a pretty good deal on the "Indomitus" box set that contains two reasonable armies in the box (although I'd want to paint them and that would take me ages).
Are there any other good reasons I should bite the bullet and buy this? Is there any indication it's not simply going to be replaced by WH40K v10 in 18 months time?
9th edition is actually an 8.5 edition.
The jump from 7th to 8th was a complete redesign of the game (good thing, because the game had become hot garbage).
The game went the direction of AoS, with a simplified rulebook but with a lot of specific rules for factions and models.
It currently competes with 5th edition as the best edition ever, depends who you ask to.
Normally I would say that this is a great time to join back into the game, it is one of its gold ages... and yet I would refrain from it.
There are non zero chances that this crap goes on for another 12-24 months with ups and downs, so you are hardly going to get many games in this edition.
If anything, I would suggest you to try playing it on TTS and see if the game is for you.
PieInTheSky wrote: I haven't been into Warhammer or played Warhammer for about 25 years.
Out of curiosity, I watched a few (very well made fwiw) videos on WH40K lore on YouTube, and it gave me the itch to get back into it.
I have some serious reservations however, and it basically revolves around it all being too blatant a money grab on behalf of GW.
The first one is ... 9th edition. 9th? Are they releasing a new version every 2 years?? So by the time the average person has handed out enough money to Games Workshop and spent enough time painting to actually have completed a real army ... it's time to get a new one. Convenient.
The second is the miniatures ... the move to 32mm minis was pretty underhanded imo. They're not easier to paint ... they're actually more difficult to paint as there's so much more detail crammed into them and each model takes longer to complete to a decent standard (and uses more paint). Why? When we're already struggling for space on a limited sized gaming table? So everyone had to buy new armies of course.
So I do have reservations over the whole nature of Games Workshop and feel I don't want to give them any of my money just on general principle.
However, after 9 editions the rules must be pretty damn solid by now. I can also get a pretty good deal on the "Indomitus" box set that contains two reasonable armies in the box (although I'd want to paint them and that would take me ages).
Are there any other good reasons I should bite the bullet and buy this? Is there any indication it's not simply going to be replaced by WH40K v10 in 18 months time?
Nope. 40k is not the game for you. Everything in your post tells us that. So just go away now.
If you don't? All you'll be (if you're not already) is one of the trolls who's hobby is railing against the game/company vs actually playing & having some fun with your friends.
So just spare us all & take up a different hobby.
I am a fan of 9th. In terms of a game to jump into without a current background... depends what you're looking for. I have *fun* playing an action game. Not so much a strategy game, though there is a step to get good at the strategic part (list building, deployment, knowing your army). It's not much of a tactical game, but there is a step to get good at the tactical part (making decisions, weighing your risk vs rewards, knowing when to be aggressive and when to hold back).
I've found it fun to play. I think the core rules are in a pretty good place, and GW has been actively balancing the points and rules, though often at a $ cost to the players every year.
That said... if you already have a negative view of GW, I doubt you'll gain an appreciation for their business methods.
If you're concerned about getting a playable force on the table, and having *time* to play games, I've enjoyed Kill Team. It's similar enough to 40k "proper" that you'll scratch the same itch, and I find it's a more tactically rewarding experience, especially if you use a fair bit of LOS blocking terrain, as you'll have single soldiers peeking around a corner, taking cover where a full squad would need to line up along the edge, which looks kind of weird. It's also much easier to dip your toes into, so to speak. A box or two of infantry is all you typically need to play most factions. Some factions are "best" with pieces from 3 different boxes, but that's not the usual. I think Tau are one of the hardest hit with wanting Pathfinders, Drones, and either Stealth Suits and/or Crisis suits. Only because Crisis suits are expensive, on top of needing at least one other box, since the drones come in the other kits.
I'd say there are better games out there... but 40k isn't bad. And it's popular, which makes finding other players a lot easier. Kill Team is a great way to get the flavour of 40k without dumping a ton of cash, and you can get by quite well with just the Core Rules and the Elite rules (which contain the rules for 95% of the models allowed in Kill Team).
I was doing some calculation and if you last played 25 years ago, then you were probably playing in 2nd edition? I have seen a lot of people compare 8th and 9th to 2e favourably. Although obviously the design is modernised quite a bit from back then.
It is a departure from 3-7th edition, which is why you might see some negativity in the thread. I would say it is worth looking into though, the game is more popular than ever so they must be doing something right.
I really like what they've done (waiting on the CSM book to potentially get back in, though the DG equipment nonsense has me worried)
The fact it will probably only be a 1.5 to 2 year edition (after the lost gaming from the plague) is a shame which will make the book investment even more painful than usual.
Question: do you like to play stand alone or competitive games, or are you a campaign player.
If you like stand alone competitive games, it's a bit of a crap shoot whether or not you'll like this version of the game better than the last time you played. There are pluses and minuses, and really it's all going to boil down to personal preference.
If, however, you like campaign play, this is almost guaranteed to be your favourite iteration of the game ever. They've created something called the Crusade system, and I swear I've been waiting for it since I started playing in 1989.
GW hasnt changed as business.
Their BS business practices hasn't changed.
Their rules bull crap hasnt changed.
Every single expensive book with rules they release comes invalid out of the gate as it needs day 1 errata & FAQ. Every. Single. One..
But boy oh boy, am I not investing a single penny into any other factions or miniatures from them...
It looks like very soon we will all be playing with exactly the same squads which are only ever going to be as shown on the box and whats in the box...
My advice.
Play something else or stick to an old ruleset and buy old minis second hand.
Da Boss wrote: I personally share many of your reservations, which is why I play Grimdark Future rather than 40K. But I think 9th is probably pretty decent all told, it has a very positive reception overall, with similar caveats to other editions.
I would really like to try Grim Dark Future. It does all the hard work of making the unit profiles for most of the stuff.
For what I don't like i can always home brew stuff.
People in my area more likely than not will not deviate from the official ruleset however.
To OP: The game is fun if you like building a "deck" and seeing how it works against other decks. Typically your success in the game relies on how the cards interact with each other, and your opponents. Tactical maneuvering and feints is not the name of the game here. You can almost always bet that the newest stuff is the most powerful stuff.
Grimtuff wrote:A few weeks (or even days ago), I would have tentatively said yes, though frankly the whole CCG with minis game they have morphed it into makes me never want to dive to deep into 40k as it has been infested with tournament tryhards trying to turn it into an esport. Play it with friends for funsies but don't take it seriously.
They're kinda like genestealers or chaos cultists
addnid wrote:Dakka is the last place you want to ask this question
As the owner of 7 editions of 40k, I can tell you unequivocally that as a set of rules...
... no edition of 40k is ever worth retail price. (possible exception Rogue Trader)
What might be worth it however, is the built-in playerbase. So the question is not really "How great is the game?" Rather the question is "How much is ease of finding a game worth to you?" No wargame is as easy to find opponents for as 40k.
I've been out of 40k for the last 2 editions but my friend who is in thinks that this is one of the most playable editions ever and it did let him connect with a bunch of players quickly upon moving to a new state.
As a general consideration, be aware that you can get used codexes and rule books for older editions for very cheap (like $3-$10) used online.
Now onto the questions...
How serious are you about wanting to actually play the game, versus just messing around in the hobby (ie buying some miniatures, painting, reading lore, etc). If the former then we go to the next question. If the latter, then do whatever strikes your fancy and don't worry about the edition. You can pick up older stuff for cheap and have a blast reading up on things.
If you want to play, do you need to rely on finding an established group (eg at a game store)? If so, you're probably going to need to get involved with the current edition (9th). The good news is that the basic core rules are free online through GW - but this really isn't sufficient beyond a very basic skirmish.
If you are planning on getting your own friends involved with playing, or you find a group that is already or willing to play "oldHammer" then you have some choice about what edition you want to play.
Most people around here either playing the current edition or playing some version of a
house-modified 5th edition. 5th edition was quite compete and reasonably well balanced without getting too complex or convoluted. You can find the old books for cheap online.
The beautiful thing about setting into the old edition is that there is no pressure to keep up with state of game - both energy wise and financially. The game might play tomorrow is the same one you could come back to in another 25 years.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Yeah pretty much, but you are asking on Dakka. Salt central.
Be honest, that's pretty much any active forum with a 40K community. warseer used to be the same before it crashed.
People can armchair command and debate from the safety of their computer without much concern for real world blowback.
It's a circular argument 40K is big because it is accessible, it's accessible because it is so big...it just took them a long time to get here.
It is not the best written system, and the price point is terrible compared to many other games. the lore(and overall model quality) keeps em coming back and GW knows that. with their strategy to drive sales they have to keep pushing the next update/expansion/edition through both models and rules.
battletech as a matter of comparison advanced the story/lore and introduced new models for new units in the timeline but the overall game rules have not changed much since 1987 and work across all time lines the same way.
It just comes down to rather or not you enjoy the current game design, many of us don't so we play the editions we like best, it doesn't really impact the player base that likes the current edition.
In my opinion people that start the hobby should focus on the hobby, not to be competitive on the table. By the time they have properly learned how to play, buy, assemble and paint a 2000 points army with some benched units to eventually make some changes the game is already migrated from the starting point, sometimes even very far.
So my advice is: if you re-enter 40k consider this edition like some kind of trial for 10th. You won't probably be able to play properly before a couple of years unless you find an extremely relaxed environment.
People that start the hobby demanding EVERYTHING NOW!!!! and get soon disappointed after realizing that the game gets significant updates every few months have definitely made the wrong choice, playing 40k is not something they should seek.
Those people should only play the simulator: this way they'll have everything now and everything always.
Eilif wrote: As the owner of 7 editions of 40k, I can tell you unequivocally that as a set of rules...
... no edition of 40k is ever worth retail price. (possible exception Rogue Trader)
What might be worth it however, is the built-in playerbase. So the question is not really "How great is the game?" Rather the question is "How much is ease of finding a game worth to you?" No wargame is as easy to find opponents for as 40k.
I've been out of 40k for the last 2 editions but my friend who is in thinks that this is one of the most playable editions ever and it did let him connect with a bunch of players quickly upon moving to a new state.
That player base question is IMO indeed the most important one ☝️
I would hold off getting in until it matters. I haven't gotten any books for awhile and won't till I need to and will be able to play.
The leaks and rules for most of them come pretty quick and easy these days so keep your eyes open and take your time.
I may be mired into the bog but you don't have to be yet, save yourself if at all possible.
I also add, no edition of 40k is ever fine tuned or the best. They just keep changing it up over and over to sell books until the end of time, perfecting the system I really don't think is what they are striving for.
Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I see that at least this forum is most certainly still active. A lot of good information and advice there, I appreciate that.
The suggestions to play an older version of it are solid (I actually do that with D&D ... 1st Ed. AD&D for the win!), however since I literally own nothing WH40K, I was considering just making 9th "my version" and starting with the Indomitus box set. I don't really know the history of it, but there is some suggestion that many previous editions were largely compatible. I'd just be worried about investing in 9th only for all the miniatures that I painted to suddenly be "obsolete" in two or three years. It's not so much the rules that worry me, but all the time it goes into painting miniatures. They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
ccs wrote: All you'll be (if you're not already) is one of the trolls who's hobby is railing against the game/company vs actually playing & having some fun with your friends.
So just spare us all & take up a different hobby.
I don't think I've ever met a single player of GW games that doesn't rail against the company. GW sucks and the way they price gouge their player base they deserve to be out of business to be fair. But I think they're just too big to fail now. That does not mean the game can not be good, nor does it mean you can't play and have fun with your friends. But you don't have to be a "fan boy" of a blatantly money-grubbing company and from the sound of it, many people on this forum agree, so save your condescending posts next time thanks.
PenitentJake wrote:Question: do you like to play stand alone or competitive games, or are you a campaign player.
To be honest, I don't know! I am guessing it would mostly be stand-alone.
PenitentJake wrote:If you like stand alone competitive games, it's a bit of a crap shoot whether or not you'll like this version of the game better than the last time you played. There are pluses and minuses, and really it's all going to boil down to personal preference.
Certainly seems that way. Very mixed reviews in this thread.
Eilif wrote:What might be worth it however, is the built-in playerbase.
This is exactly at the crux of so many issues that have come up in this thread. Why not play an old version? Why not play a different indie rules-set? How do GW get away with price-gouging? They're too big. The lore however is excellent. They nailed that.
aphyon wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Yeah pretty much, but you are asking on Dakka. Salt central.
Be honest, that's pretty much any active forum with a 40K community. warseer used to be the same before it crashed.
People can armchair command and debate from the safety of their computer without much concern for real world blowback.
As I already mentioned, anywhere where players discuss the GW company seems to be "salt central" and for good reason.
Out of curiosity .... what would be the "real world blowback" for having a whinge about GW's dodgy marketing practices?
If you haven’t played before but feel the itch now then I think that 9th is a good place to start. The Indomitus box is great value, although bits not a true a Starter Set. Still great models and you get the big Main Rule Book. The core rules of 9th are good and easy to digest. Much better than 3rd through 7th and are an improvement on the 8th reset. That is my subjective opinion.
Will there be another edition? I certainly think so. The models will carry over at least.
The blowback comes in several ways-
.people who never played before 8th ed and know nothing about how the game used to be (as i said it is literally a different game)
.people who are GW simps for various reasons-player base, miniature quality etc...
.people who only want to play whatever is the newest and are constantly chasing the GW info/update dumps.
.the divide between casual lore/fun players and the more tournament minded (9th was really more designed with them in mind, we can talk about the merits of the crusade system VS the old kill teams progression system VS in built lore based rules etc.. at another time)
etc....
when you even suggest doing something like the fantasy players have been doing when AOS destroyed the game they loved (going back to a prior edition that most veteran players loved)
At our FLGS...when things are normal we have a core group of say....10 very active players who play 40K along with other games(and a hit and miss of randoms that come in and join us on regular game night). many of us like the mechanics from 5th better, some like both (because they are so different they can use the same models in their collection for the most part for both versions), some only want to play the "new shiny" when they play 40K.
Invalidating models is also a serious issue now with 9th. GW has moved many minis to "legends" status. they will never get an update again and can only be used in casual games with opponent permission. it became a thing after GW lost the chapter house court case so they had to re-brand everything in a way they could copyright it
It is another great thing that those of us championing returning to 5th. all the dexes are available, the rules will never get changed again and nothing will get removed from the game (and they are much cheaper to buy used. i own 10 of the old dexes even though i only ever play my salamanders or dark angels unless i borrow an army from a friend. otherwise i have the books on hand for other players to use if they want to join in)
Of course this like any other non-GW game requires a bit of in person promotion to spread the love of the game. i have done a pretty good job in the past getting new players into classic battletech, DUST, warmachine, infinity etc... just by bringing along spare armies for demo games.
Are there any other good reasons I should bite the bullet and buy this? Is there any indication it's not simply going to be replaced by WH40K v10 in 18 months time?
It depends on a lot on what army you play. I don't think many people would say that it would be a good idea to start lets say Tau right now. There is a ton of good armies that are doing very well in 9th. I personaly having only a comperation between 8th and 9th, can say that for me and my army, the improvement is hard to quantify, because it is so big when one compares quality of gaming one gets. Until most armies, or at least armies you play get fully updated it is hard to judge 9th, specialy as GW did fix its main problem , or at least tried to fix it, in the form of huge adventage of person going first and last turn of second player not mattering at all. Which often resulted here in people just not playing it.
I'd say if you are getting back into the game due to nostalgia it will never live up to how it was in your salad days. If you want to invest, enjoy the miniatures, enjoy having fun in the games but don't expect anything incredible.
PieInTheSky wrote: Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I see that at least this forum is most certainly still active. A lot of good information and advice there, I appreciate that.
The suggestions to play an older version of it are solid (I actually do that with D&D ... 1st Ed. AD&D for the win!), however since I literally own nothing WH40K, I was considering just making 9th "my version" and starting with the Indomitus box set. I don't really know the history of it, but there is some suggestion that many previous editions were largely compatible. I'd just be worried about investing in 9th only for all the miniatures that I painted to suddenly be "obsolete" in two or three years.
(1) I wouldn't worry too much about models becoming obsolete. Outside of more unusual models that were put in "legend" status, the vast majority of models from decades ago are perfectly valid still.
(2) The indomitus box is a good deal and you get some great stuff in there, plus a really nice copy of the full rule book. That said, it's entirely possible for GW to release a 10th edition in 2-3 years, and your rule books at a minimum will become obsolete.
(3) All this said... there are some major differences between the "modern" editions (8th and 9th) and the "classic" version (3rd through 7th).
For what it's worth, and in my opinion, classic warhammer was a more intuitive and less bloated system by a wide margins. The core rules were a bit more involved, but once you got comfortable with them it was smooth to play.
The basic tenor of the game IS different now in a rather fundamental way. 8th/9th added a command point resource management angle to the game, which when combined with a huge pile of stratagems to learn and many, many more special rules at the codex level, makes the whole game fee more focused around combo-building at the army list stage, with that being the main "show" gameplay wise compared to table level tactical decisions. When people say 8th/9th feels more like a collectible card game (CCG) this is what they mean.
Few other examples of how things have have changed:
- Vehicles aren't treated with special rules at all. They are basically just the same as other models but with more wound points. No variable armor facings or damage tables.
- Cover saves and armor saves work differently, and in general cover isn't as relevant and powerful as it used to be (cuts down on table leve tactical opportunities)
- Morale is completely abstracted. Units no longer break and fallback, but instead failing tests just removes additional models. Not very thematic or fun.
- There is much more reliance on modifiers to die rolls, which IMHO bogs the game down. Much of the gameplay is about starcking buffs and aura effects on units to stack modifiers and/or re-roll abilities. This pulls emphasis off the tactical spatial play and is responsible for a lot of bloat on the rules.
- At a competitive level, a fair number of people grumble about the mission design and the overall lethality of the game. It seems easier now to win the game at the list building stage, which turns into being able to neutralize an opponent in 1-2 turns. Games feel like they are decided pretty quick, compared to the old versions where it often came right down to the final moments.
So it's a tough choice.
If you want to have the option to play with people in stores or clubs, the newest version, for good or bad, is probably what you are going to have to play. This comes with the baggage of having to "stay current" with FAQs and rule errata to some degree. And it is just a different game now than it was.
If you think you'll be forming your own group, and they are willing to play an older version, and you think the older rule systems sound better, it might be worth looking into picking up some older books (start with 5th edition - you can get the rule book used for like $5 on Amazon). But it can be a more lonely journey.
I don't think many people would say that it would be a good idea to start lets say Tau right now.
I'd strongly recommend tau if the player seeking advice considers them the best looking army, and likes their style of playing. By the time he's actually gathered the models to play, game is already completely different.
On the contrary if someone starts an army just because it currently does fine but the time he's actually ready to play that army could have been nerfed into oblivion. At least in the first case the player had a good time with the hobby part.
I'd never recommend playing SM for example, because mirror matches are boring and can actually kill the interest for the hobby very soon. I also consider all of their modern models god-awful but that's just my personal taste.
The pendulum swings, especially for the biggest standalone factions.
PieInTheSky wrote: They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
Are you talking about the Primaris marines here?
People theorise that these were originally intended as a replacement to the existing Space Marine range, but that isn't what ultimately happened. They work alongside the original Space Marines, and are intended to be slightly bigger. I'm not aware of any overall official change of scale.
Compatibility is fine. Some people still use metal models from 30 years ago. Hell, if you buy a brand new box of Khorne Berzerkers right now, you're buying a 20+ year old set of models. Other than looking older and less detailed than the newer sculpts, they are fine to play with.
If you like the 40K lore and minis but dont like amassing a huge army, I strongly recommend checking out Kill Team.
I used to play 40K about a decade ago and then stopped, got back to 40K a few years ago. Had I known about the existence of Kill Team, I might have skipped out on the whole 40K thing and now would just be playing Kill Team. Would have saved me a bunch of money.
BTW, your old minis are still fine and you can use them in current 40K. If you have old minis on a smaller base size than what is used now, just rebase the old minis - its easy to clip off the edges on the plastic bases, then just glue the old one onto a bigger base and redo the bse with sand (or whatever you prefer, flock, technical paints, coffee grounds etc)
If you do decide to give Kill Team a try, be aware that a new expansion (or even a new starter perhaps?) is coming out in Q1 / 2021.
After the DG codex leaks came out? Nope. Not worth it in the slightest. If you are interested in kitbashing or making your models personal in any way, GW will just gut your army because they are not loyalist SMs.
Curious what about the codex has you feeling this way?
people who never played before 8th ed and know nothing about how the game used to be (as i said it is literally a different game
Ha .. People who haven't played 8th or 9th but somehow have very strong feelings on the mechanics has been an issue lately.
To the OP -
I would say it kind of depends. 8th, for all its faults was actually fairly fun over all. The catch with 9th is that the core rules, while similar, are just different enough that I don't know if I would agree that it really is "8.5". It just plays very differently. It's not bad although the missions start to get a little "samey" after a while, and we've already seen (on the first two books out of the gate) that classic GW move of differing design philosophies. COVID has obviously thrown a giant wrench into the works here, or more books would be out, but my suggestion would be to give it a few more codex releases before you decide. If the books end up close enough in power and design philosophy then this will be a pretty good edition I think. Especially if you're just looking at garage hammer.
The nice thing is, unlike when you last played, things get updated now. If something is broken, you typically get a fix within a few months, rather than just knowing it's going to be broken for the rest of the edition.
You might want to take the salty ex-players' salt with a grain of salt.
Truth is, 40k 8th edition was the best so far and 9th is proving to be more of the same, better even, with very regular updates and balance fixes, tons of awesome new models, etc.
There has never yet been a better time to come back to 40K, anyone who is not currently pissed off at GW will be able to admit as much.
PieInTheSky wrote: Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I see that at least this forum is most certainly still active. A lot of good information and advice there, I appreciate that.
The suggestions to play an older version of it are solid (I actually do that with D&D ... 1st Ed. AD&D for the win!), however since I literally own nothing WH40K, I was considering just making 9th "my version" and starting with the Indomitus box set. I don't really know the history of it, but there is some suggestion that many previous editions were largely compatible. I'd just be worried about investing in 9th only for all the miniatures that I painted to suddenly be "obsolete" in two or three years. It's not so much the rules that worry me, but all the time it goes into painting miniatures. They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
Eilif wrote:What might be worth it however, is the built-in playerbase.
This is exactly at the crux of so many issues that have come up in this thread. Why not play an old version? Why not play a different indie rules-set? How do GW get away with price-gouging? They're too big. The lore however is excellent. They nailed that.
A few things.
-Older versions:
If you expect to have opponents, there really is no point in using an older version of the game. The exception might be if you get some old-hammer players who want to play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition, but that's a rare breed. I actually played a throwback game of 2nd edition and it cured me of the rose-colored glasses for that one...
-Alternate rulesets:
If you have opponents who like alternate rulesets, skip 9th edition entirely and have a look at the "Grimdark Future" free rules from One-Page-Rules.
https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/grimdark-future/ If you don't have friends who are into alternate rulesets 9th edition is likely the only game in town for the 40k universe.
-Scale creep and model legality...
Scale creep has happened but as has been mentioned, the vast majority of 40k figures ever made and nearly everything produced in the last 20 years is still completely legal regardless of scale descrpenecies.
-32mm bases
AFAIK, you don't have to rebase miniatures for new bases if they are on the bases they were equipped with. However, if you have old figures or save money by buying old figures and want to adhere to the new base sizes, your cheap solution for base expansion is here:
https://eccentricminiatures.com/accessories.html
-Current rules.
Though I'm through with 40k, as a fan of more streamlined rulesets, have to admit that these are some the best 40k rules I've seen in a decade at least.
From a collecting point of view, GW have made it nicer to collect a force with their various bundles and Start Collecting sets. I really appreciate those set and enjoy making them. They sold so much more stuff to me by having those slightly discounted bundles than they otherwise would have!
From a collecting point of view, GW have made it nicer to collect a force with their various bundles and Start Collecting sets. I really appreciate those set and enjoy making them. They sold so much more stuff to me by having those slightly discounted bundles than they otherwise would have!
Yeah, the bundles are really nice, and we're at a point where you can even get a bunch of stuff on ebay fairly cheap.
The price of new kits is exorbitant, and continues to rise. This causes used minis to become more expensive, as well. The Start Collecting boxes were a good idea, but were overpriced to begin with, received a price increase or two, and are now being replaced with Combat Patrols at a whopping $140.
You will most likely have little trouble finding people to play with.
The rules? Well................... You may like some or all of it, but here are my thoughts.
The most tactical part of 40k is list building. Leaders have aura abilities that, generally, modify to hit and to wound rolls for units within the specified range. Some cause what are called Mortal Wounds, which were created as a reaction to units with high durability from invulnerable or cover saves in 7th ed. Models cannot make saving throws against mortal wounds................ except for saves that can......
Stratagems are played like instants/sorceries in MTG; you pay the required cost in Command Points, and activate a buff- again, often + or - or rerolls to hit and/or to wound. Some abilities that units possessed natively have become stratagems.
Every model can attack with all of its weapons, at different targets. Monstrous creatures and vehicles can fire through themselves......
8th introduced a keyword system that has been implemented crudely, as an attempt to encourage players to build fluffy and/or single-codex armies. The system is one of many band-aids that result from 40k's IGOUGO activation style and shallow core rules. Keywords overcomplicate gameplay, list building, and make unit entries a pain to read.
Hand-in-hand with keywords are Chapter Tactics and equivalents, that provide special rules based on what keyword your army uses. <Ultramarines> <Imperial Fists. and ><Raven Guard> share nearly all units and equipment, but because the core rules are move, shoot, stab, the rules team decided that CTs needed to exist to make armies play fluffy. Aaaaand they mostly adjust the math.
Before 8th, 40k used Universal Special Rules for abilities that were c common across armies; Deep Strike, Fleet, Rage, Fearless, etc. Then GW got the dumb idea to give special rules different, long-winded names for different armies. These bespoke rules are the same rule by different names, occasionally with insignificant differences. Bespoke rules also take longer to read and memoize because the rules are written long-form instead of a quick formula, with fluffy gibberish. You may leave a unit with Totally Not Deep Strike in the Warp....... Or underground, or........ Some of these rules don't even function as written. Chaos players can't put their terminators into the warp, for example.
On the whole, 9th 40k is a mish-mash that is both overcomplicated and oversimplified at once. Balance between armies is poor. Balance within a codex is poor. Especially for pickup games.
You can never be sure if your army will be competitive, or for how long.
Strategy and tactics are minimal. Movement matters for reaching objectives and bringing units into range, maneuver isn't really present.
People still play GW games because GW has inertia with a large player base that perpetuates itself. No-one wants to be "first" to play a different game, because they fear that other people won't play it, thereby ensuring that never happens. People love the lore and the minis, too. Many people who play GW games, I'd bet, are "Warhammer players." Not "Wargamers." For whatever reason, perhaps the culture among players I've experienced firsthand that is an exclusive, GW-only group, or mere comfort, GW persists, despite anti-player practices.
If I were to make any recommendations for someone getting into the game, I'd urge them to look at games in the 1K point range - they're much saner and easier on the wallet.
GW is really pushing the game at the 2K level in a way that only benefits their bottom line, not the health of the game.
Of course, the issue is getting other people to agree to the lower points level. I've not met many who are of similar mind.
I'd strongly recommend tau if the player seeking advice considers them the best looking army, and likes their style of playing. By the time he's actually gathered the models to play, game is already completely different.
that is exactly the thing a new player wants to do. spend 700$ or more on an army. find out it is outdated, invest even more to keep it up to speed, assuming he can and it doesn't turn in to him never finishing an army till he is 30 and buys one in one go, only to find out that the new thing may not even make a good army. This melicious level of evil. Only worse thing I can imagine it enticing a new player to spend money on an army which is or will be phased out, or litteraly telling them to start playing a dead game.
Also considering the number of different builds space marines generate, telling that they are somehow mono build or prone to mirror matchs is odd, when armies like harlis or orks or demons more or less have this one way to play. With marines sometimes buying two or three boxs of infantry you get a new army, can take an IH army buy 12-13 TWC models and you can build a SW army. Spam attack bikes or Eradictors, or both, or run more VanVets instead etc.
You will most likely have little trouble finding people to play with.
The rules? Well................... You may like some or all of it, but here are my thoughts.
Blastaar's post pretty much hits it for me as well.
As someone who "wants to play an awesome MINUATURE tabletop wargame" - 8th/9th edition have pulled away from that direction, IMHO. It's still a good game, and is clearly popular and doing well - but it just isn't the same game as the 40K I fell in love with.
Really, for the OP - the key question is what do you want out of your involvement with the game/hobby. If it's keeping up with the Jones' and getting involved with the local playerbase, maybe playing in events/tournaments/etc, then you HAVE to play 9th edition. There's no way around it.
If you're more interested in "Garage Hammer" or finding/growing your own group of players, then I'd really suggest at least giving older editions consideration. You can buy into the older editions for a fraction of the price, and depending on what kind of gameplay you want, might deliver on the promise for a miniature wargame much better. There is something to be said for stepping off the GW treadmill and making 40K "your own" instead of being at the mercy of GW. There is ALWAYS angst about the current edition of the game, and going back to earlier editions avoids the bulk of it.
As a personal plug, see the link to ProHammer in my signature. This is a project I've been working on over the past year to create a unified ruleset for "classic" 40K. All you need is the core 5th edition rule book (can be bought for less than $10 used) along side that document, and you can play classic games using ANY codex released for 3rd through 7th edition. I'm working on a full re-write of it right now that cleans things up more and will result in not needing the 5th ed rulebook at all. My group has been playing ProHammer, I've been teaching it to some new players as well, and it's gone over well.
I'd strongly recommend tau if the player seeking advice considers them the best looking army, and likes their style of playing. By the time he's actually gathered the models to play, game is already completely different.
that is exactly the thing a new player wants to do. spend 700$ or more on an army. find out it is outdated, invest even more to keep it up to speed, assuming he can and it doesn't turn in to him never finishing an army till he is 30 and buys one in one go, only to find out that the new thing may not even make a good army. This melicious level of evil. Only worse thing I can imagine it enticing a new player to spend money on an army which is or will be phased out, or litteraly telling them to start playing a dead game.
Also considering the number of different builds space marines generate, telling that they are somehow mono build or prone to mirror matchs is odd, when armies like harlis or orks or demons more or less have this one way to play. With marines sometimes buying two or three boxs of infantry you get a new army, can take an IH army buy 12-13 TWC models and you can build a SW army. Spam attack bikes or Eradictors, or both, or run more VanVets instead etc.
People that want to play competitive games should be aware that chasing the flavour of the month is unavoidable, so spending money regularly on miniatures is the only way to go. Only a fraction of players are actually willing to do that, because competitive game is still in the minority. Typically every collection of models with some variety in it is good for casual games with 50-75% (or more of course) of the size of that collection. Including Tau.
And orks have multiple competitive builds. Take a look at their winning lists, most of them are different. In more relaxed metas they have even more. Daemons also have a huge roster, they're actually 4 different factions.
Problem with getting 12-13 TWC, bikes spam etc... is that if GW nerfs ONE unit your entire army is nerfed. I'd never suggest someone that wants to start the hobby to collect a skew list. And I'd suggest avoiding skew armies like Harlequins, Custodes, Imperial Knights, Grey Knights as well unless they found a huge deal on the second hand market.
ccs wrote: All you'll be (if you're not already) is one of the trolls who's hobby is railing against the game/company vs actually playing & having some fun with your friends.
So just spare us all & take up a different hobby.
I don't think I've ever met a single player of GW games that doesn't rail against the company. GW sucks and the way they price gouge their player base they deserve to be out of business to be fair. But I think they're just too big to fail now. That does not mean the game can not be good, nor does it mean you can't play and have fun with your friends. But you don't have to be a "fan boy" of a blatantly money-grubbing company and from the sound of it, many people on this forum agree, so save your condescending posts next time thanks.
{shrugs} Ok, then join the game. Prove me wrong & become a happy enough 40k player.
Just know that what you started your 1st post complaining about isn't ever going to change (improve). At best it'll stay the same. At worst.... If you join now, be prepared to buy a new edition come about summer 2024.
I must admit though that I don't understand why someone who views the game/product as a money grab, by a company that they say they're opposed to giving $ to on principal, would do this.... But welcome to 40k.
PieInTheSky wrote: Wow! Thanks for all the responses. I see that at least this forum is most certainly still active. A lot of good information and advice there, I appreciate that.
The suggestions to play an older version of it are solid (I actually do that with D&D ... 1st Ed. AD&D for the win!), however since I literally own nothing WH40K, I was considering just making 9th "my version" and starting with the Indomitus box set. I don't really know the history of it, but there is some suggestion that many previous editions were largely compatible. I'd just be worried about investing in 9th only for all the miniatures that I painted to suddenly be "obsolete" in two or three years. It's not so much the rules that worry me, but all the time it goes into painting miniatures. They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
If you get indom and make Necrons your main faction you should be good with out much worries. The marine half is where it gets tricky with supplements and possibly a version 2 book coming out later in the edition (probably no time soon as not every codex has been updated yet). 9th ed should be around for awhile, especially since gw have had to slowdown production thanks to covid.
Not sure what you mean by the 32mm scale up. Old Marines got their bases scaled from 25mm round to 32mm but most people (unless you are going to serious tournaments) will let you play your marines on the smaller base size. I know some models got slightly up scaled, but again out side of competitive play most people will let you play with your old models. Anyone who doesn't let you play with your models is not worth playing. Some weapons options/gear options can become obsolete but again outside of strict competitive play those options are either available in Legends or can be used as a count as something else for most other players.
Again most of your concerns really only apply if you are trying to win highly competitive tournaments. Casual games at a lgs or with friends just talk to your opponent about what your doing and most of the time you will face no issues, and if you do face issues talk to someone else.
morgoth wrote: You might want to take the salty ex-players' salt with a grain of salt.
Truth is, 40k 8th edition was the best so far and 9th is proving to be more of the same, better even, with very regular updates and balance fixes, tons of awesome new models, etc.
There has never yet been a better time to come back to 40K, anyone who is not currently pissed off at GW will be able to admit as much.
This is pretty tautological. "Ignore the people who didn't like the 7th/8th change, they're just salty. If you listen to the people who did like the 7th/8th change the game is great now!"
There are a lot of people running around saying "8th/9th is the greatest thing ever!" and sure, they're having a good time, good luck to them. Considering how the community feels in aggregate, however, my impression is that after a brief period of sunshine in early/mid 8th the amount of vitriol pretty much reset itself to where it was in 7e around the time SM book 2 landed. I can also tell you that in my experience everything that's wrong with 8th/9th is exactly the same stuff that was wrong with 7th (wildly uneven releases, appalling internal balance, rules bloat, difficult to pick up as a newbie because you need to do a lot of research to figure out whether the models you like are game-breaking or trash, weird relationship between power tiers and the age of a Codex), and it's all there for the exact same reasons (lack of centralized vision, "we've finished all the Codexes now let's set the game on fire and make a new edition!", each army gets a book-sized update every 4-5 years and then band-aid FAQs that don't fix anything in between, no interest in addressing grandfather-claused stats for older models).
In my experience 9th is a much better tournament game than 7th. If you're the kind of person who reads stats to determine what models to buy/how to equip them, throws away bits when you're done because you've built the model, thinks tournament winrates are the measure of the quality of the game, doesn't mind playing the same stuff everyone else is playing, and is fine with buying new stuff every six months because your list build got hard-countered by some new OP thing everyone else is playing now, 9th is great. If you want to keep using older models without needing to constantly buy new stuff, play models that don't feature in every tournament list, play quick casual games where you throw some models you like on the table and just roll dice and have fun, or like conversions, 9th is comparable to or worse than 7th on every metric.
The only thing I would add is. If you are looking to delve into 40k and are worried about models going obsolete I would avoid anything with finecast. Its likely to be phased out or replaced by plastic.
Obviously the newest armies as Primaris marines, Sisters of battle & Necrons should have the longest shelf life on their model range.
I really didn't like 8th, to me it was a horrible edition. And the very idea that it could have been better then prior ones feels me with dread. 9th ed is much better. It isn't perfect, maybe it isn't even very good, but it is much better then 8th that is for sure.
I did not like where 7th was, and by the end was ready to sell my collection. 8th came around with indexes, and we started playing again, but we stopped when our group couldn't overcome 1st turn advantage... despite plenty of terrain. We just built armies that could mitigate even tremendous amounts of terrain... 1st player won every game we played. After about 20 games we just agreed that it was better than 7th, but the core rules resulted in our games being decided NOT EVEN BY LIST per se, but by who won the first turn.
We are having fun in 9th. 1st turn doesn't win *literally* every game we've played.
I agree it's much less of a WARGAME now, than it used to be. I really do find it's a HEROIC ACTION game now, and while I miss the wargame feel, the heroic action game is FUN. and that's what I care about more than anything. I get to put models down, roll some dice, not have to think *too* hard, have fun with my friends. 9th hits those buttons right on, so that makes me want to play it.
Stormonu wrote: If I were to make any recommendations for someone getting into the game, I'd urge them to look at games in the 1K point range - they're much saner and easier on the wallet.
GW is really pushing the game at the 2K level in a way that only benefits their bottom line, not the health of the game.
Of course, the issue is getting other people to agree to the lower points level. I've not met many who are of similar mind.
This is the exact opposite of current reality as for basically the first time ever (or at least in recent years) GW is actively making missions and providing support for games at 500-1000 points, specifically to help people get into the game.
PieInTheSky wrote: They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
Are you talking about the Primaris marines here?
People theorise that these were originally intended as a replacement to the existing Space Marine range, but that isn't what ultimately happened. They work alongside the original Space Marines, and are intended to be slightly bigger. I'm not aware of any overall official change of scale.
Compatibility is fine. Some people still use metal models from 30 years ago. Hell, if you buy a brand new box of Khorne Berzerkers right now, you're buying a 20+ year old set of models. Other than looking older and less detailed than the newer sculpts, they are fine to play with.
No, I'm talking about their whole miniature range, including the fantasy battle models and BloodBowl. The idea, obviously, was to make the old miniatures obsolete as the scale is now wrong. The new ones are all gigantic compared to what was the industry standard.
I say, "was" sadly, because it's pretty monopolised by GW. Once they started making 32mm miniatures, a lot of indie developers fell in line. The standard was 28mm for a "mid-sized" miniature, which was much better because they were quicker and easier to paint, took up less space on the gaming table, and looked better too. I think the 32mm ones (and tbh, I think a lot of the GW models are well over that even) look too much like "small action figures" and not enough like real miniatures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: The only thing I would add is. If you are looking to delve into 40k and are worried about models going obsolete I would avoid anything with finecast. Its likely to be phased out or replaced by plastic.
Obviously the newest armies as Primaris marines, Sisters of battle & Necrons should have the longest shelf life on their model range.
How is what they are made from going to make them obsolete? (genuine question)
I mean obsolete in a rules and/or scale perspective. Not as in a "not made out of the latest thing" perspective. I have a collection of old-school pewter miniatures which I put a lot of time into restoring a painting up nicely. Old bloodbowl miniatures and stuff like that. Those old metal ones are actually much better imo, they feel better due to their weight.
ccs wrote: All you'll be (if you're not already) is one of the trolls who's hobby is railing against the game/company vs actually playing & having some fun with your friends.
So just spare us all & take up a different hobby.
I don't think I've ever met a single player of GW games that doesn't rail against the company. GW sucks and the way they price gouge their player base they deserve to be out of business to be fair. But I think they're just too big to fail now. That does not mean the game can not be good, nor does it mean you can't play and have fun with your friends. But you don't have to be a "fan boy" of a blatantly money-grubbing company and from the sound of it, many people on this forum agree, so save your condescending posts next time thanks.
{shrugs} Ok, then join the game. Prove me wrong & become a happy enough 40k player.
Just know that what you started your 1st post complaining about isn't ever going to change (improve). At best it'll stay the same. At worst.... If you join now, be prepared to buy a new edition come about summer 2024.
I must admit though that I don't understand why someone who views the game/product as a money grab, by a company that they say they're opposed to giving $ to on principal, would do this.... But welcome to 40k.
Thanks!
Well, GW plainly are price gouging in a variety of different ways which is off putting when you're thinking about investing money in their products. But that doesn't mean that the lore, atmosphere, mechanics, etc. behind 40K are not appealing. All of those things they've obviously done very well. Especially the lore. Then of course there's the fact that it's the most widely played tabletop wargame, which adds further to the appeal. It's a question I guess of whether it's worth it or not. I'm still not sure it is, so you might not have to put up with me here for long.
I'm not that worried about the rules being obsolete (although that would be slightly annoying, there are ways around it), I'm more worried about collecting a bunch of miniatures and investing time and effort painting them to a decent standard only to have GW change the scale again, or make certain models useless in later editions (i.e. involuntarily retired to the display cabinet), etc. Of course, I could just ignore that and go on playing 9th, but what's the point in that if most people move on to 10th and the others are all playing their favourite older edition (5th or whatever someone mentioned)?
PieInTheSky wrote: They really pulled a fast one by scaling up the size to 32mm, it's one thing that really annoys me not only because it obsoleted everyone's old miniatures, which was obviously the intent, but also takes up more space on a limited table (and takes longer to paint). Anyway, I think I could look past that as I guess they're not going to repeat that trick anytime soon. Roughly how "compatible" are the miniatures between different versions of the game, to give me a rough idea?
Are you talking about the Primaris marines here?
People theorise that these were originally intended as a replacement to the existing Space Marine range, but that isn't what ultimately happened. They work alongside the original Space Marines, and are intended to be slightly bigger. I'm not aware of any overall official change of scale.
Compatibility is fine. Some people still use metal models from 30 years ago. Hell, if you buy a brand new box of Khorne Berzerkers right now, you're buying a 20+ year old set of models. Other than looking older and less detailed than the newer sculpts, they are fine to play with.
No, I'm talking about their whole miniature range, including the fantasy battle models and BloodBowl. The idea, obviously, was to make the old miniatures obsolete as the scale is now wrong. The new ones are all gigantic compared to what was the industry standard.
I say, "was" sadly, because it's pretty monopolised by GW. Once they started making 32mm miniatures, a lot of indie developers fell in line. The standard was 28mm for a "mid-sized" miniature, which was much better because they were quicker and easier to paint, took up less space on the gaming table, and looked better too. I think the 32mm ones (and tbh, I think a lot of the GW models are well over that even) look too much like "small action figures" and not enough like real miniatures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Argive wrote: The only thing I would add is. If you are looking to delve into 40k and are worried about models going obsolete I would avoid anything with finecast. Its likely to be phased out or replaced by plastic.
Obviously the newest armies as Primaris marines, Sisters of battle & Necrons should have the longest shelf life on their model range.
How is what they are made from going to make them obsolete? (genuine question)
I mean obsolete in a rules and/or scale perspective. Not as in a "not made out of the latest thing" perspective. I have a collection of old-school pewter miniatures which I put a lot of time into restoring a painting up nicely. Old bloodbowl miniatures and stuff like that. Those old metal ones are actually much better imo, they feel better due to their weight.
ccs wrote: All you'll be (if you're not already) is one of the trolls who's hobby is railing against the game/company vs actually playing & having some fun with your friends.
So just spare us all & take up a different hobby.
I don't think I've ever met a single player of GW games that doesn't rail against the company. GW sucks and the way they price gouge their player base they deserve to be out of business to be fair. But I think they're just too big to fail now. That does not mean the game can not be good, nor does it mean you can't play and have fun with your friends. But you don't have to be a "fan boy" of a blatantly money-grubbing company and from the sound of it, many people on this forum agree, so save your condescending posts next time thanks.
{shrugs} Ok, then join the game. Prove me wrong & become a happy enough 40k player.
Just know that what you started your 1st post complaining about isn't ever going to change (improve). At best it'll stay the same. At worst.... If you join now, be prepared to buy a new edition come about summer 2024.
I must admit though that I don't understand why someone who views the game/product as a money grab, by a company that they say they're opposed to giving $ to on principal, would do this.... But welcome to 40k.
Thanks!
Well, GW plainly are price gouging in a variety of different ways which is off putting when you're thinking about investing money in their products. But that doesn't mean that the lore, atmosphere, mechanics, etc. behind 40K are not appealing. All of those things they've obviously done very well. Especially the lore. Then of course there's the fact that it's the most widely played tabletop wargame, which adds further to the appeal. It's a question I guess of whether it's worth it or not. I'm still not sure it is, so you might not have to put up with me here for long.
I'm not that worried about the rules being obsolete (although that would be slightly annoying, there are ways around it), I'm more worried about collecting a bunch of miniatures and investing time and effort painting them to a decent standard only to have GW change the scale again, or make certain models useless in later editions (i.e. involuntarily retired to the display cabinet), etc. Of course, I could just ignore that and go on playing 9th, but what's the point in that if most people move on to 10th and the others are all playing their favourite older edition (5th or whatever someone mentioned)?
Fine cast resin models are old sculpts that used to be made in metal. I believe there were one or two models that were only produced in fancast and did not have a metal equivalent but I cant think of any of the top of my head.
Some bright spark at GW has decided to use the same molds, and cast these minis in crappy resin instead to save $$.
A common name for GW's fine cast in the community is "Fail Cast" due to alleged poor quality. (Can confirm from extensive personal experience and others will corroborate). The material is very flimsy, brittle and warps very easily and is very unsuited for fine detail. To the point OOP metal sculpts of current fine cast models are usually priced higher than brand new fine cast equivalents. The prime example is the Craftworld & Drukhari factions who have a big chunk of their roster still in fine cast. If you look at any of the aspect warrior squads on ebay a NIB metal will cost you more than the current fine cast model.
There is a reason GW no longer makes new fine cast molds and even its made to order stuff is made from metal. Its because this production method is vastly inferior to plastic injection molds but is a lot cheaper (which is why it was used).
GW has been ever so slowly phasing out fancast models and either just getting rid of the unit/ moving it to legends and stopping selling them or making a brand new plastic kit.
Therefore fine cast units could be replaced by modern plastic kit or they could just go away.
OP: I hear you about the siren call to return to it together with the leeriness to give GW money for it.
The 40K setting is one easy to fall in love with and twist to suit your whims, since it's compelling and interesting and over the top and can be as cerebral or cathartic as you want. With a bit of jumping through narrative hoops, there's very little that falls outside the realm of plausibility. It's less openly self-aware and comic than it was back in 2nd, in a way I feel is to its slight detriment, but it is still 40K.
On the other hand, the game is at this point absolutely a blatant money grab. GW is egregiously price gouging on an awkward, obsolete sales model that it has a perceived monopoly on, and this is one of the reasons you're getting discouraged from trying (or at least buying) 40K 9th by some of this community for reasons with which I entirely sympathize; Continued financial success on GW's part with this will only encourage its behavior. You'd become part of the problem, because why change what works?
And while, yes, 9th is more an evolution of 8th than a new edition unlike 7th-8th, no, there is no indication that they won't just rewrite everything in a couple years. One of my favorite little ranting points is that the books are especially worthless, because they're A) physical books in a game that keeps getting patched periodically in some weird Cronenberg-esque fusion between an online and a PnP game, meaning the rules within them may not even be accurate in a month and they'll sometimes even charge you for the patches; and B) hideously overpriced because they're mandatorily bundled with a bunch of story, artwork, and gloss army showcases you may or may not care about, like you're basically forced to get the Collector's Edition of a major game release to play the game at all, and C) may not last more than a year or so before being replaced entirely. Codex: Space Marines 2.0 from 8th was $40USD and lasted all of 14 months before being replaced by a $50 book. At least when you buy a model marked up by 200%, it's still a model in two months, unless you have a large housepet or roommate with an iron jaw and particularly nondiscerning palate.
The state of 9th's rules themselves I mostly leave to those better experienced. I tried to start a group with some longtime online friends and either played or helped mediate/teach just under a dozen games over Tabletop Simulator during the first months of the edition, and this went disastrously for reasons that were honestly only partially GW's fault.
If you're interested in the hobby but put off by the idea of giving GW money for it, fret not, there are options. You can buy old armies off eBay and strip the paint off, or get a 3D resin printer, which can lead you down quite magical rabbit holes, and I'm learning a lot about digital modelling in the process. For the rules, there are ... references online, as well as alternate (and far cheaper) rulesets entirely, like the aforementioned Grimdark Future.
40k has lost it's best feature since 8th edition rolled out. That's personalization. Before you can grab a model and stick on whatever weapons from the box and beyond and it will probably have been a legal build. Now the restrictions are so tight that kit bashing and converting are pointless for a lot of models and is now done for aesthetic reasons
The tide is turning against GW as more people are locked down with time to reflect, both on GW greediness, as well as over alternatives. Without radical change, GW is losing the loyalty that had brought them this far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
123ply wrote: 40k has lost it's best feature since 8th edition rolled out. That's personalization. Before you can grab a model and stick on whatever weapons from the box and beyond and it will probably have been a legal build. Now the restrictions are so tight that kit bashing and converting are pointless for a lot of models and is now done for aesthetic reasons
I went back to playing 3rd. To tell you how easy it was, I was able to get a regular opponent for 3rd who didn't start playing until late 6th edition.
Find where you're most happy rules wise, THEN worry about using internet resources to find opponents. If you have a FLGS that is open during these times, like I do, then you would only have to post in the store for a retrogaming night and potentially offer to teach younger players the older systems.
After considering my options for a few days, I have decided not to buy Warhammer 40K. I don't want to give them my money on principle, they're just not a moral company, I'd feel too much like a sucker.
No offence intended to everyone who has bought 9th Ed., I did strongly consider it and almost went through with it and still may in the future. All it would take is for them to release a statement saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future, we're just going to build on this, no more new versions" and I would change my tune.
But for the moment, I even avoid buying GW paints, much of which are expensive versions of paint diluted to different consistencies so they can be sold as "special purpose" paint, all complete with containers purposely designed to waste as much of it as possible as opposed to the eminently sensible and efficient dropper bottles everyone has used for the past 2 decades. And don't get me started on their ridiculously over-priced, sub-par-quality brushes that are more expensive than a top-shelf Windsor & Newton ... so obviously I'm ranting already ... so why would I go and buy a huge collector's edition boxed set from them that's likely going to be obsolete-by-marketing-design in 18 months?
I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.
So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.
PieInTheSky wrote: ...I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.
So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.
I don't know if "best" is an easy answer here. 1e/2e are looser and more skirmish-y than the later game and were much more customizable but much more bookkeeping-intensive. 3e-5e were probably the most straightforward 40k has ever been; they had facings and blast templates, but the scale was a lot more manageable and there was a lot more care taken to keep the cross-Codex balance more standardized. 6e/7e had some of the most well-standardized and comprehensive core rules but were thrown badly out of whack by poor Codex-writing decisions and special rule creep. 30k (6e/7e with Forge World historical Imperium/Chaos armies, no xenos) is in many ways fixed/better 7th, but the lack of xenos makes it a hard sell to players and you can't usually get the minis cheaply unless you're all right with doing a lot of converting/proxying.
I'd suggest 4th or 5th as an entry point if you want to go for GW-made rules. If you go over to Proposed Rules you'll find a few people working on their own homebrew content; I'd started a rewrite of 7th (link in my signature) but have mostly pivoted to working on a Necromunda-based skirmish 40k game right now, Mezmorki's got a working project that patches the 5e core rules to allow for Codexes/content from 3rd through to 7th in active development, not sure which others approach playability. There are also "one page" rules floating around if you like the minis and aren't too fussed about the rules, and Kill Team (both the GW product and the Heralds of Ruin project) if you're more interested in the smaller/skirmishier end.
The GW golden age around here was 5th ed. Though 3rd and 4th both had their good points and their strange stinker rules. It may not be too hard to find some of those old rule books and give them a read through and maybe see which one strikes your fancy.
In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.
Just Tony wrote: In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.
you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.
Just Tony wrote: In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.
you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.
The difference being that neither of those editions had internally and externally balanced lists included from the get go. 3rd Ed. was sort of like 6th Ed. WFB with Ravening Hordes in that respect.
3rd or 5th would be my recommendation. The advantage with 3rd is you can just buy the core rulebook secondhand or whatever and you have lists for a bunch of armies already in the book that work fairly well. You don't get as many fancy toys but it is a fun game especially for the sort of small forces you are looking to play at.
5e is my favourite edition, but some of the stuff toward the end I didn't like that much like the addition of flyers and so on. But for 500-1000 point games of a few squads of infantry and a big monster or tank, it works really well.
And for a simple and accessible game for free, I think it is definitely worth checking out Grimdark Future. It has lists for all the factions plus extra lists for stuff like Space Dwarves and non-chaos Human rebels, and the rules are all free and miniature agnostic. It is very stripped down and simple though, and that is not to everyone's taste.
3rd was a great edition, maybe my favourite, although I wouldn't recommend to avoid codexes and just use the rulebook. So much will be missed and basically nothing (but buying one less book) will be gained.
Older editions like 3rd or 5th don't have the problems people may face when they do pick up games against strangers; choosing old editions is entirely a matter of casual players that want to have fun and codex creep shouldn't exist in such environment. During those editions codex creep was also very limited compared to 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th so it's actually quite easy to play fairly balanced games.
Basically just avoid Chaos 3.5 in 3rd and Grey Knights in 5th, then both 3rd and 5th can be played using whatever armies and units people like to use.
During 7th I managed to find someone that was willing to revamp those editions and I had a lot of fun at that time. Now everyone sticks to 9th or AoS here, it's already hard to find opponents for the current version of Necromunda, let alone older editions of 40k. I'd really love playing a few more games of 3rd.
Just Tony wrote: In my opinion 3rd Ed. using the army lists in the rulebook will be the most balanced 40K you will probably ever play. It's the Codices that fethed up that system.
you can say that pretty thoroughly for most editions, but especially 6th/7th...But with the caveat that sales encuracing er,,,, meant formations didn't help it either.
The difference being that neither of those editions had internally and externally balanced lists included from the get go. 3rd Ed. was sort of like 6th Ed. WFB with Ravening Hordes in that respect.
Also true...
i miss those , they often were a great foundation for campaigns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: 3rd was a great edition, maybe my favourite, although I wouldn't recommend to avoid codexes and just use the rulebook. So much will be missed and basically nothing (but buying one less book) will be gained.
Older editions like 3rd or 5th don't have the problems people may face when they do pick up games against strangers; choosing old editions is entirely a matter of casual players that want to have fun and codex creep shouldn't exist in such environment. During those editions codex creep was also very limited compared to 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th so it's actually quite easy to play fairly balanced games.
Basically just avoid Chaos 3.5 in 3rd and Grey Knights in 5th, then both 3rd and 5th can be played using whatever armies and units people like to use.
During 7th I managed to find someone that was willing to revamp those editions and I had a lot of fun at that time. Now everyone sticks to 9th or AoS here, it's already hard to find opponents for the current version of Necromunda, let alone older editions of 40k. I'd really love playing a few more games of 3rd.
TBF, chaos 3.5 has 2 issue lists and the rest is ... well it exists, let's formulate it that way.
As for 5th grey knights... boi, that is some IH supplement release nonsense level.
But yeah overall if you find someone and can with the knowledge of hindsight avoid the pitfalls you can make these two editions in some of the best 40k fun there is.
The problem I would see with 3rd out of the rulebook is there are no Tau, which is a shame. But if you give Tau their codex and everyone else is out of the rulebook, tau are going to kick everyone else's arses.
I recently got a copy of the 3e rulebook though from a used book seller and I do love it. The missions in particular are wonderful and I love all the additional rules in it for those sorts of games.
Must see about getting a 4e and 5e rulebook someday too.
2nd was more like an RPG in many ways and you almost need a DM to guide the game.
3rd-7th were the cross compatible editions where the mechanics were basically the same with a few tweeks here and there. 3rd and 4th were more lore heavy while 5th was more refined. the problem is some of the best rules didn't stay in the next edition when they fixed other rules that were problems.
3rd had terrible things like the old "guess" weapons for templates where is you guessed wrong on the distance you could not even fire it. that was fixed with the scatter dice + BS reduction for targets in LOS with 4th
4th overpowered skimmer vehicles especially eldar and to a lesser extent tau while making non skimmers death traps
5th had a wonky wound allocation system that on it's face made sense but was quickly abused by comp players. many people also complained about how tanks got more resilient compared to 4th, but at the same time AT weapons became more available so it was a wash in the end.
To fix most of those issues without having to do much to the game(we do not make our own rules) our group just uses 5th for the core rules/USRs and imported in the best versions of the rules from 3rd, 4th and 7th that fit better in 5th. (a total of 15 rules like snap fire, grenade throwing, overwatch, sniper weapon rules etc..) this allows players to use whichever codex they think best fits the lore of the faction from editions 3rd-7th when building their armies. for example our chaos players always use the best codex ever written-the 3.5 chaos dex. where as myself i use the, demon hunters, witch hunters, and dark angels from 3rd/3.5. then tau, ork, eldar(the skimmer problem goes away with the changes to vehicle rules in 5th) and nid codexes from 4th while i use 5th for core marines, blood angels, space wolves, imperial guard. while pulling in the "new" factions like custodes and mechanicus from 7th.
It all works out pretty seamlessly leading to some really fun and sometimes silly games (blood frenzy sometimes means your berserkers don't always go where you want them to)
I have posted many of our battle reports in my topic on the matter to give you an overview. keep in mind our groups approach is to have a fun gaming experiences as a casual group (many of us have been playing 40K going on 20 years and some other games longer) more focused on playing within the lore of the setting not squeezing out every ounce of performance for it's sake alone.
P.S. almost forgot, a great way to play small games-get a copy of the 4th ed main rules and look up combat patrols
400 points or less
.custom scenarios
-Required units
1HQ(only 1 HQ allowed)
1troop
every other unit option in the FOC is allowed except heavy vehicles (vehicles are limited to combined AV of 33-it was 32 but when necrons got vehcles in 5th that were almost all 11/11/11 so we "in house" updated it), ordinance weapons, and a few other items.
I think 5th strikes the best balance overall. It added a few fun gameplay options like allowing units to run or dive for cover - but is by and large fairly similar to 3rd and 4th.
Seriously - google "Amazon 5th edition 40K rulebook". There are FIFTY used copies for sale and the cheapest one starts at $2.50 plus $4 for shipping for "good" condition. Very good condition copies sell for a staggering $10.
After considering my options for a few days, I have decided not to buy Warhammer 40K. I don't want to give them my money on principle, they're just not a moral company, I'd feel too much like a sucker.
No offence intended to everyone who has bought 9th Ed., I did strongly consider it and almost went through with it and still may in the future. All it would take is for them to release a statement saying, "this is it for the foreseeable future, we're just going to build on this, no more new versions" and I would change my tune.
But for the moment, I even avoid buying GW paints, much of which are expensive versions of paint diluted to different consistencies so they can be sold as "special purpose" paint, all complete with containers purposely designed to waste as much of it as possible as opposed to the eminently sensible and efficient dropper bottles everyone has used for the past 2 decades. And don't get me started on their ridiculously over-priced, sub-par-quality brushes that are more expensive than a top-shelf Windsor & Newton ... so obviously I'm ranting already ... so why would I go and buy a huge collector's edition boxed set from them that's likely going to be obsolete-by-marketing-design in 18 months?
I am however still interested in the game and may instead do as suggested and investigate some older editions and older miniatures - obviously from my posts, I far prefer the older miniatures anyway, before they all became gigantic. I won't even dive into that straight away as it seems unlikely I'd ever get a game. But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.
So ... obviously this is going to open a huge can of worms ... but which of the old versions is best? To give an idea of my own personal preferences, I'd prefer a version that uses the 28mm miniature scale (I suppose it doesn't make that much difference if all the models are of the same scale, but fwiw), I also prefer the slightly more serious atmosphere of the later versions. I'm really not a big fan of GW-cartoonish comedy. A little bit is okay but I prefer it to be kept in check.
Hate to sound like a broken record but did you ever check out Kill Team? If you prefer smaller armies of around 500 points, a Kill Team is only slightly below that scale.
PieInTheSky wrote: But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.
I believe you absolutely need the latest version for that.
4th through 7th were absolutely unplayable without a heavy investment in learning rules, and older editions with ugly models that aren't even easy to source will surely be more complex than 8th+
8th and 9th you can play within a reasonable timeframe without much preparation.
That said, rules cost 0, points you can get with battlescribe, you don't need to give GW one dollar if you don't feel like it.
I mean, you are clearly wrong Morgoth. You absolutely don't need the rules for that.
But you make a good point, you can download the rules for those editions and try them out at no cost. OP might find they enjoy the style of game more than the previous style.
As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either. So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.
This is the exact opposite of current reality as for basically the first time ever (or at least in recent years) GW is actively making missions and providing support for games at 500-1000 points, specifically to help people get into the game.
Sort of? I mean they promised "500 point" games, and I personally, feel like 9th plays best at the 1000 point level, but 500 is still unplayable without a ton of agreed-upon-beforehand restrictions and considerations. Almost anything less than 1000 and the game gets really tricky if you don't have a regular group where you can talk to them and make agreements on stuff like this. On its own, it doesn't function well at those levels.
@ PieInTheSky:
Like the poster above me, I would second Kill Team, Even if you go with an older edition of 40k for your bigger battles, Kill Team is still a surprisingly good and fun game!
As far as older editions go - Rogue Trader (also known as 1st edition) is almost unplayable, and it may be hard to track down. 2nd is fun, but fairly complex with a lot of game aids that you will end up either having to make, or, again, track down. I found 3rd to be too streamlined (for me it was actually even less tactical than 8th). 4th was a step in the right direction, but I think, with the benefit of hindsight, 5th was probably the best over-all edition. I would recommend starting there.
Da Boss wrote: As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either.
Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).
What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.
As someone who plays warhammer for models first, that would be a huge factor in picking an edition.
Imagine you just love GSC and you want to play 5th ed.
Doesn't sound like that'll work out too great now does it?
How about picking an edition without bias ?
Why would you even go for anything but the latest edition that most people play ?
What happens when you make a new friend, who loves 40K, and is not completely crazy so he actually plays the current edition ?
So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.
In the face of so much salt by players who have been salty around here for more than five years straight, through every edition, and who even dare to state that there is as much salt on 8th as there is on 7th ???
At some point, it's a good idea to just look outside of the dakka pit of endless saltiness and realize that people just love GW for the models they're putting out, that most people don't find it too expensive to buy, and that things like AOS and 40k 8th edition have vastly increased the overall appeal of the games and influx of new blood, through very basic means like making the game more playable, less tedious and overall more fun.
Yes, it might not be what you want, or what you like, but pretending that it's anything but a huge glaring success is just crazy.
e.g. I won't ever play AoS because the models are just fething slowed. Not interested sorry.
Won't touch it with a ten foot pole, keep your elves with horns and your crazy shark-riding wtfantasy.
For sure, such a *great* idea has to be the epitome of copyrightable, I don't think anyone was ever *smart* enough to come up with those *awesome* ideas for armies.
Still a huge success, and an awesome game according to most people who have tried it.
What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.
I mean, it's a pretty trivial thing to just buy Intercessors and say they're true-scale Marines. You can use whatever models you want, so the OP doesn't even have to use GW models at all. There's no rule in any edition that says "In X edition you must only play with models that were made during X edition"
That objection doesn't even make sense. Playing 2nd ed but don't like the 2nd ed boys? Good news! The current boys will work just fine! Don't like the old Land Raider? Do a conversion of a vehicle you DO like, or just use a newer one. Like I said, your train of though here just makes little sense to me.
Hey morgoth, you seem to be projecting a lot of anger onto my post.
I have acknowledged that 40K is a big success. I think that is cool, because as you point out, it provides me with cool minis to play with.
It isn't quite to my taste but that doesn't mean I think it is bad. It just isn't for me at the moment. I might change my mind.
But I can't understand your really extreme POV. I am not saying the OP or anyone else should not try 8th or 9th, everyone should figure out for themselves what they like and there is no cost to trying the rules if you have minis.
But your extreme POV is as bad as the posts you are decrying really.
kirotheavenger wrote: There's also no reason why playing older editions rules means you can't use the newer models.
Shhhhhhhh!!! Don't tell 'em that /s
One of my newphews got the Indomitus box over the holiday's. We're using the lovely new mini's but playing an older edition, just substituting things around that don't have a parallel. I'm tempted to design a "Primasis-only" codex to use with classic editions.
Da Boss wrote: Hey morgoth, you seem to be projecting a lot of anger onto my post.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your post, or any anger in it, it's just that in the general context of this forum, and thread, it could pass for an apology of the extreme saltiness of 50% of the posts.
My words might be extreme, but they're actually presenting a middle-of-the-road, normal world view.
Not some crazy salty ex-player, not some crazy fanboyish new-player.
Just someone who looks at the whole thing and can't believe how insanely excessively salty the overall tone of the discussion is.
I guess that extreme refusal of reality must be what irks me and in turn makes my communication that strong in the opposite direction.
That said, my replies are irrelevant and will be as usual drowned in the general noise, I just sometimes feel like a new player or potential returning player deserves a more reasonable point of view than what generally comes out on dakka.
I can understand why that would be pretty frustrating. Maybe I should leave the 40K forum alone, I've seen this viewpoint expressed by more than one poster recently.
morgoth wrote: That said, my replies are irrelevant and will be as usual drowned in the general noise, I just sometimes feel like a new player or potential returning player deserves a more reasonable point of view than what generally comes out on dakka.
Your post's aren't getting drowned
I feel like this thread has been pretty 50/50 on whether to go with the current edition or try something older - and most of the posts from both camps have been pretty pragmatic about the pro's and con's of going either way.
I have a preference for older editions, no question. But I fully acknowledge that if a new player wants to actually play the game and plans on joining an established player community, they'll probably need to be playing and keeping up with the latest edition. If that isn't the priority, and they are fine with garage hammer and forming their own group, the sky is the limit. In this case, it is at least worth considering playing an older edition over the newest.
Playing Current Edition (9th)
Pro: Larger player base, it's what most people/places are going to be using
Pro: New models and units are available. Newer models are generally higher quality.
Pro: It's where the competitive scene is at (tournaments, etc.)
Neutral: The gameplay is different than "classic" 40K. More complexity at Codex level, focus on list building, combos, stratagem play
Neutral: You're giving GW your money
Con: Not all codexes are released yet for the current edition
Con: Need to "keep up" with updates/FAQs etc to stay in the know
Con: More expensive - codexes cost more, new mini's more expensive than used, need to buy rule updates, etc.
Playing Classic Editions (2nd or 3rd-7th)
Pro: "Stable" game - all codexes are released, rules released, etc.
Pro: Cheaper - old books can be found used for very cheap, older mini's for cheap
Pro: Opens up the opportunity for house-rules or minor rule tweaks to suit your tastes. Easier to make the experience "your own"
Neutral: The gameplay is different than "modern" 40K. More detailed core rules but generally simpler codexes. More emphasis on table-level tactics over list/combo bulding.
Neutral: You're probably not giving GW a dime
Con: Harder to find opponents and/or convince people to play older version
Con: Some newer models don't exist as unit types in older codexes - need to use these as a substitution
Con: Miss out on the "zeitgeist" of the current edition (i.e. discussions of strategy, lists, release hype, etc.). YMMV
Honestly Morgoth - I'm not sure how comments like this:
Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).
Really mesh with:
My words might be extreme, but they're actually presenting a middle-of-the-road, normal world view.
I mean it's not like this:
There has never yet been a better time to come back to 40K, anyone who is not currently pissed off at GW will be able to admit as much.
Is a "moderate", "middle of the road" opinion ...
You may think you're presenting a balanced view, but you are not coming off like that. A lot of your posts actually seem saltier than most of the posts in this thread (which, imo has actually been a pretty constructive/informative thread). I'm not pointing this out to attack you btw. Just pointing out that you may not be coming across the way you intend to be coming across.
I can understand why that would be pretty frustrating. Maybe I should leave the 40K forum alone, I've seen this viewpoint expressed by more than one poster recently.
Nah. I for one have enjoyed your posts. You do have to put some folks on "ignore", but I wouldn't take Morgoth's view for the whole of it. I don't think they realize how they are coming off. You can't say "Anyone who doesn't like the current time period is just a hater", and "I'm just trying to be fair and balanced" in the same thread and have them be true, and you definitely can't be the saltiest sounding person in the thread and then complain that you're being "drowned out by the salty ex players" ... lol
EDIT:
PieInTheSky wrote:
But I could collect two or three small ~500pt armies and have one-offs with friends that don't usually play 40K, and I'm thinking along those lines. I don't need the latest version for that.
Missed this before. If you're looking for 500 point games specifically, you might be better off with an older edition as it's easier to get more balanced games at that point level without a ton of caveats and house rules. Starting with roughly 6th ed, there's too much variance in what you can take at that level. I still think you would do well to look at 5th for this, or possibly even 3rd (although 3rd wasn't to my personal liking as it felt over-simplified).
I would say one of the strongest "Pro" that playing an older edition would have, is you're already kind-of-sort-of-little-bit playing by house rules anyway.
And once people are comfortable with that mindset, I think it's easier to have a conversation with your opponent regarding the balance, and things you'd both like to play, and basic things like, "Hey, that codex is pretty strong compared to this one... mind if I take some extra points to help balance things?" is easy and comfortable. If you're building your own armies to play against each other, you'll get a feel for which is "stronger" and you can do your own in-house balancing by adding or subtracting points... changing rules... lots of things are negotiable.
I for one LOVED the old deep-strike rules. Take a risk, see where you land... And you can negotiate whole-sale changes to rules. Like, I never liked blast templates or flamer templates. So I would advocate large blast rolls to hit as normal, and if you hit, score 5 hits instead. Small blast = 3 hits if you hit, and if you're in 9" with a flamer, score 3 hits, if you're within 5" you score 5 hits.
And I could go on, of course. There are a lot of good, fun, playable rules throughout the editions. So if you find someone / a group that is willing to chop up the best from each edition you could really make the game your own.
RE: 2nd edition sculpts - Chaos Terminators, Chaos Dreadnaughts, and the old Abbadon model got me into 40k. I've recently bought a bunch of the old, used Terminators and Dreads to make a Black Legion Spearhead. Yes, I'm adding the new Abby, and a new Sorceror in Terminator Armour, and using a trio of converted, old Abby models for the unit champions, and I might convert a multi-melta to an old metal Dread... but the fundamentals of that army's build will be 2nd edition, metal models.
And I hate working with metal models... but I still like their look, and I can finally play the army I wanted to right from the beginning. (A "elites" detachment featuring 3x Termies, 2x Dreads, 1x Abby, 1x Sorceror, and 1x Land Raider @ 1500 points). Not all sculpts have aged well, but I still like them more than just Nostalgia factor.
Da Boss wrote: As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either.
Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).
What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.
As someone who plays warhammer for models first, that would be a huge factor in picking an edition.
Imagine you just love GSC and you want to play 5th ed.
Doesn't sound like that'll work out too great now does it?
How about picking an edition without bias ?
Why would you even go for anything but the latest edition that most people play ?
What happens when you make a new friend, who loves 40K, and is not completely crazy so he actually plays the current edition ?
So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.
In the face of so much salt by players who have been salty around here for more than five years straight, through every edition, and who even dare to state that there is as much salt on 8th as there is on 7th ???
At some point, it's a good idea to just look outside of the dakka pit of endless saltiness and realize that people just love GW for the models they're putting out, that most people don't find it too expensive to buy, and that things like AOS and 40k 8th edition have vastly increased the overall appeal of the games and influx of new blood, through very basic means like making the game more playable, less tedious and overall more fun.
Yes, it might not be what you want, or what you like, but pretending that it's anything but a huge glaring success is just crazy.
e.g. I won't ever play AoS because the models are just fething slowed. Not interested sorry.
Won't touch it with a ten foot pole, keep your elves with horns and your crazy shark-riding wtfantasy.
For sure, such a *great* idea has to be the epitome of copyrightable, I don't think anyone was ever *smart* enough to come up with those *awesome* ideas for armies.
Still a huge success, and an awesome game according to most people who have tried it.
I could not disagree strongly enough. To be honest I have a fairly strong dislike for the new GW models, they're doing everything wrong and it's mostly about the dollars (of course).
Firstly, they're way too big and they are ridiculously over-priced for a gram of plastic. At least the old ones felt heavy (and we all know, heavy is good, heavy is a sign of reliability). The fact that they changed the scale to 32mm just to force everyone to rebuy models even though it has an obvious detrimental effect on any miniature war-game (space is a premium, and so is time in painting larger models) speaks loads. The old-school models are not as detailed but they have a kind of charm and heart and soul, like many things that are hand-made instead of mass-computer-produced, that the new ones lack.
And not having as much fine detail is actually a good thing (and you can cram a LOT of that into a "miniature" that is so designed on a computer and so big that is basically a "small action figure"). It's a good thing because you don't use as much paint, but more importantly, you can paint up a nice looking army much much faster. The new range of GW models were designed to do two things: 1. obsolete everyone's old miniatures and scenery; and 2. use more paint per model.
I also find it a lot of fun applying modern painting techniques (and 20+ years of experience) to old-school miniatures. There's nothing quite like an old-school miniature from yesteryear lovingly stripped down, restored and given a paint-job that would have absolutely blown the socks off of anybody back in the day (but is now fairly common place, not a brag or anything, they just couldn't paint very well back then).
Some people seem to be a little confused as to what I mean when I'm talking about scale creep. This is BloodBowl, but it's the same with 40K. And all the measurements in game, scenary, etc. are scaled to go along with it. And it sucks quite badly that they do this.
They fellah on the left is basically an ogre by old standards.
... and anyone who buys the nonsense (I was told this by a GW employee fwiw) that the model on the left is "easier to paint" has not done much painting. They're more difficult to paint because there's more fiddly detail crammed into each one and they take longer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kirotheavenger wrote: There's also no reason why playing older editions rules means you can't use the newer models.
I'd prefer to use the older models with the new editions tbf.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tycho wrote: That objection doesn't even make sense. Playing 2nd ed but don't like the 2nd ed boys? Good news! The current boys will work just fine!
Actually they won't because the scale is all off.
In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scene.
BloodBowl is like if some company was, "wtf ... let's give something back, this old software is now OPEN SOURCE! Enjoy Everyone!". Then a few years later, "wait ... people actually like that? Not Open source any more sorry, we want more dollars".... very uncool stuff from GW.
I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.
In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scence.
I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.
Not really a thing in my experience. The scale isn't THAT far off, and the base size isn't that much of an advantage most of the time, unless you're getting into very specific cc situations. When LGS's are allowed to be open, there's a regular "2nd ed" night at our FLGS. You show up and play 2nd ed rules with 2nd ed codexes, but whatever models you want (within reason of course), and a lot of people play with the modern models. It really isn't that big a deal.
EDIT:
To clarify - my comment is related solely to 40k as that's what we were originally discussing.
In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scence.
I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.
Not really a thing in my experience. The scale isn't THAT far off, and the base size isn't that much of an advantage most of the time, unless you're getting into very specific cc situations. When LGS's are allowed to be open, there's a regular "2nd ed" night at our FLGS. You show up and play 2nd ed rules with 2nd ed codexes, but whatever models you want (within reason of course), and a lot of people play with the modern models. It really isn't that big a deal.
Really? I would have assumed it would throw things off exponentially. But what would I know? I still don't like the modern minatures for two reasons:
1. I'm a grumpy old man.
2. Everything else I said is still true. They're harder and slower to paint and were designed only as a price-gouge on players who had already invested countless hours painting and dollars buying their existing 28mm army. I feel I don't want to concede to that tactic. Screw 'em. I'd rather play 5th edition (or some other ... but my general feeling is 5th seems to be the one most recommended to me).
I hope I'm not breaking any rules by saying this, if so please don't ban me. But I was browing through ... cough thetrove dot is ... cough ... and it was definitely 1st Edition that I played as kid. Scrolling through that old book I recognized some artwork that I thought had been wiped from my memory. Such a weird and nostalgic feeling to remember something you never thought you'd seen in the first place.
1st edition was insanity I got my feet wet with that as well. Literally any other edition is orders of magnitude easier to play than "Rogue Trader" so you'll be fine.
Mezmorki wrote: 1st edition was insanity I got my feet wet with that as well. Literally any other edition is orders of magnitude easier to play than "Rogue Trader" so you'll be fine.
To be fair, I was about eleven years old. I highly, highly doubt we were playing anything close to "by the book". Just messing about with paper cut-out miniatures and the like. I just remember some of those pictures now I see them. The space marine with all the bullets blasting through him ... how did I ever forget that? Such weird nostalgia.
Really? I would have assumed it would throw things off exponentially. But what would I know? I still don't like the modern minatures for two reasons:
1. I'm a grumpy old man.
2. Everything else I said is still true. They're harder and slower to paint and were designed only as a price-gouge on players who had already invested countless hours painting and dollars buying their existing 28mm army. I feel I don't want to concede to that tactic. Screw 'em. I'd rather play 5th edition (or some other ... but my general feeling is 5th seems to be the one most recommended to me).
Yeah, it really doesn't make that much of a difference game wise. Especially if you're just there to have fun. The difference in most situations is negligible. There are a few rare spots where there's a unqiue advantage but it's rarely string enough or often enough to really matter that much.
As far as not liking the new sculpts - I mean that's fair. You like what you like!
As far as Rogue Trader - That's where I started as well. It was, essentially unplayable without a strong game master who could "fix" the things that didn't work. Like rules for weapons with very cool and elaborate effects, but with no way to be deployed, etc etc. Fun, but not really "playable" by modern standards.
I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.
If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.
Da Boss wrote: I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.
If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.
Ha! At last someone who gets it.
Not only do they throw the rules off, but I would go as far as to say they're not as aesthetically pleasing either. Browsing the display cabinets in the local Stockholm "Warhammer" store (for some reason they don't call themselves Games Workshop any longer), I get the feeling the models are more like "toys" than miniatures. Of course they are toys, but you know what I mean I hope. Like action figure dolls instead of miniature war gaming figures. They're just too big, and it means then entire table and all the scenery and rules measurements and everything else have to be bigger too.
That much said, I really did read and consider what @Tycho said too. Make no mistake Tycho, I'm not someone who gets salty about losing games, but at the same time I am a bit of a rules-lawyer. I want the scales of the models to be accurate for the measurements described in the rules. For good reason I believe too. I don't care if it means I win or I lose, but it should be as per the rules as reasonable possible without exploiting obvious loop-holes and technicalities. That doesn't mean you can't have a fun, relaxed, easy-going game. It just means rules are important in creating a fun game. They create the non-arbitrary framework against which the players can, with confidence, hedge their bets. Fluffy rules, arbitrary rules, rules that change on a whim, it might feel like the "chill" thing, but the end result is just not as good for the players, whether they know it or not at the moment.
Anyway ... off on a bit of a rant there. Apologies. It's something that comes up with my discussion on (A)D&D too (a game I am more familiar with).
Da Boss wrote: I always feel like a crazy old man rebasing my stuff onto the smaller bases, so it makes me feel better knowing someone out there feels the same way!
I would (and do) just buy old miniatures to be honest. I'm just finishing up a Halfling BloodBowl team formed with miniatures from the early 90s and late 80s. It's special - especially the treemen, they're hilarious sculpts and slowly becoming collector's items too.
I am glad to have made a friend on the forum united in my grumpy annoyance of 32mm minis. Which edition do you play?
If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!
It seems like more and more, 5th is the one that gets brought up as the edition most people would "go back" to. It was a pretty solid edition really. Probably just needs some tweaks to the missions, and a maybe a few very small house rules and you're good to go.
Da Boss wrote: If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!
Makes sense!
For some dumb reason, if I play 40K, I want it to be 40K, even if it's an old version, not some indie rip-off. That's so pathetic of me and goes against everything I value, but I can't help being a pleb sometimes, I'm only human. Don't even ask me why, I guess their marketing claws have sunken deeper than I care to admit.
In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then? I could probably get the rules and a couple of <1000pt old school armies online I guess and make a playable "board game" out of it for me and a few friends who interested in playing.
Add me to the minority of collectors that prefer the smaller 25mm bases over the size creep to 32mm bases. All of my Blood Bowl teams are on 25mm bases including several newer GW teams that came with 32mm bases. Plus all of my 40k troops are still on 25mm bases including my old Space Wolves, Necrons, and Orks. With the smaller bases I can easily fit 80+ minis into an old grey Chessex case for storage and transport.
Edit: And no, 40k 9th edition is not "worth it." Stick with an older edition (I prefer a 4th/5th hybrid) or even the new Apocalypse ruleset which works great for normal size casual 40k games.
Da Boss wrote: I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.
If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.
This probably falls into the category of things you shouldn't worry about until they become an issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.
If it turns out to be a real issue to your local community (not just a local neckbeard or 2) then the eccentric base adapters I linked to in the last page should quickly and cheaply remedy the situation.
Lil tough if you're playing Genestealer Cults or Custodes. I don't think Admech have a 5th compatible dex either. Not sure about Harlequins or Deathwatch either.
Think you have to use the 3rd ed Witch Hunters to field Sisters, and when you do there's not going to be any difference between the orders.
I did like the game though, so not slamming anyone for making that choice. Doesn't sound like OP is necessarily looking for campaign play, so you're not missing out on Crusade. More accurately, you are missing out on Crusade, but you'd be missing out on it even if you were using 9th.
I think the Pro-Hammer 5th guys might have rules for armies that weren't given dexes until 8th, but I'm not sure.
Da Boss wrote: If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!
Makes sense!
For some dumb reason, if I play 40K, I want it to be 40K, even if it's an old version, not some indie rip-off. That's so pathetic of me and goes against everything I value, but I can't help being a pleb sometimes, I'm only human. Don't even ask me why, I guess their marketing claws have sunken deeper than I care to admit.
In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then? I could probably get the rules and a couple of <1000pt old school armies online I guess and make a playable "board game" out of it for me and a few friends who interested in playing.
Yeah for sure it was still the right scale in 5e. But 5e was when some of the bigger models started to come in, right at the end of the edition. It is probably the most popular edition that is not the current edition, so you might find more people interested in it as well.
As to GDF, I can see where you are coming from. It is also VERY stripped down, like most units just have movement, quality and defense stats. 3 stats per dude means that a lot of stuff feels fairly similar.
PieInTheSky wrote: ...In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then?...
Sort of. There was scale creep going on even then; power-armoured models released during 5th (GK, Blood Angels) look really oversized for 25mm bases and have feet sticking off over the edges. Personally I liked the 32mm transition because it gave more space for basing and posing power armour, and it made tall jump troops more stable, but the size creep's only continued until we get to today where the Primaris are crowding the edges of their 32mm bases like PA was crowding the edges of its 25mm bases back in the day.
To me it just speaks to a lack of discipline on behalf of the designers, not being able to stick to a reasonable scale. It is one of the things I hated about PP, the random scale creep within ranges.
Da Boss wrote: I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.
If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.
This probably falls into the category of things you shouldn't worry about until they become an issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.
If it turns out to be a real issue to your local community (not just a local neckbeard or 2) then the eccentric base adapters I linked to in the last page should quickly and cheaply remedy the situation.
This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be snarky.
How can it not be an issue? They're literally 7mm bigger. Given two models that makes a difference of almost a centimetre and a half.
I'm very open about not having a clue as to how the rules go, but I seem to remember arguing over millimetres back in the day. Either modern players fluff measurements big time (or they just don't apply - haven't read the rules) or I am misunderstanding something out of ignorance. I assume it's the second thing so I'm all ears here...
To be clear, I know it doesn't seem like much over a turn, but it would -- I imagine -- make a huge difference if two armies had different base sizes both in movement speed and also to the size of "hit boxes" and the like.
Lil tough if you're playing Genestealer Cults or Custodes. I don't think Admech have a 5th compatible dex either. Not sure about Harlequins or Deathwatch either.
Think you have to use the 3rd ed Witch Hunters to field Sisters, and when you do there's not going to be any difference between the orders.
I did like the game though, so not slamming anyone for making that choice. Doesn't sound like OP is necessarily looking for campaign play, so you're not missing out on Crusade. More accurately, you are missing out on Crusade, but you'd be missing out on it even if you were using 9th.
I think the Pro-Hammer 5th guys might have rules for armies that weren't given dexes until 8th, but I'm not sure.
Thankyou very much for taking the time to reply, but to be honest there was either too much in-the-know lingo or I'm just too dumb -- probably a mixture of both -- for me to really understand any of that. In short, 5th Ed, yes or no? If no, then which?
PieInTheSky wrote: ...In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then?...
Sort of. There was scale creep going on even then; power-armoured models released during 5th (GK, Blood Angels) look really oversized for 25mm bases and have feet sticking off over the edges. Personally I liked the 32mm transition because it gave more space for basing and posing power armour, and it made tall jump troops more stable, but the size creep's only continued until we get to today where the Primaris are crowding the edges of their 32mm bases like PA was crowding the edges of its 25mm bases back in the day.
Ugh.
Why do they do it? It's so annoying.
They're not really even miniatures anymore and it so defeats the purpose of a miniature scale tabletop game to make everything so big.
When will it end? Even if you don't have tabletop space-saving considerations as a wargammer and you just enjoy minis for the painting and aesthetics ... miniatures are cool because ... they're miniature.
I'm used to painting (modern) old-school AD&D (Otherworld Miniatures) and old-school Citadel miniatures (Bloodbowl). The new GW range look like ogres to me.
PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.
He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions.
Crusade refers to a campaign mode that is part of 9e that a lot of people like.
Oh, and I also really like Otherworld minis. I have a bunch of their Ettercaps and I adore them.
Da Boss wrote: Oh, and I also really like Otherworld minis. I have a bunch of their Ettercaps and I adore them.
Best post in this forum yet!
Kidding ... I'm just a big fan of their work.
But I would also like to expand my horizons beyond 1st Ed. AD&D. 40K 5th Edition is getting more and more appealing with every beer I consume. But then again, so is 9th Edition. Damn it.
Da Boss wrote: PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.
He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions...
ProHammer's set up to make core rules that are compatible with Codexes from multiple editions; Mezmorki's stance on that is "use the 7e book!". I haven't gone and done the back-fitting/research to figure out if there are big holes in that.
Back-fitting Harlequins and Deathwatch into 5e yourself is fairly trivial (you have Venoms and the Harlequin Troupe for Harlequins, SIA from Sternguard and mixed squads from Wolf Guard pack leaders for the Deathwatch). AdMech, GSC, and Custodes are harder; there weren't equivalent rules floating around in 5th, the 7e Codexes were less complete, and you need to work with more FW rules to get content for AdMech/Custodes.
Da Boss wrote: PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.
He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions...
ProHammer's set up to make core rules that are compatible with Codexes from multiple editions; Mezmorki's stance on that is "use the 7e book!". I haven't gone and done the back-fitting/research to figure out if there are big holes in that.
Back-fitting Harlequins and Deathwatch into 5e yourself is fairly trivial (you have Venoms and the Harlequin Troupe for Harlequins, SIA from Sternguard and mixed squads from Wolf Guard pack leaders for the Deathwatch). AdMech, GSC, and Custodes are harder; there weren't equivalent rules floating around in 5th, the 7e Codexes were less complete, and you need to work with more FW rules to get content for AdMech/Custodes.
I realize you're speaking generally, not just to me.
But fwiw, I'm not interesting in "back fitting" or "house ruling" stuff. I like being creative as much (or maybe even more) than the next gamer, but there's an oft underestimated value in "playing by the book". The rules are consistent, non-arbitrary and impartial.
Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.
I can understand if you're playing some kind of competitive battle, but in that case then each team should have exactly the same army regardless, like chess.
But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?
Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.
Because GW when it makes a good army it isn't just better it is playing a different kind of a game sometimes, like the eldar flyer lists or castellan lists in 8th, at the same time when an army is bad, it is not just a bit worse then the good, no it is really bad. And while losing ain't fun, it is twice as unfun when you also don't get to do anything with an army, which was not drasticaly cheaper then a working one. Add to this that GW does not advertise that they write the rules in the way they do, and the fact that there is strange idea spread to new players about , just playing what they want. And we get what we have now. People feel cheated of their time and money, even before stuff like being forced in to builds etc happens.
But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?
matched play has points and victory conditions. Anything that has those two automaticaly becomes a competition. And again, as someone who won 0 real games in 8th ed, I can tell you that losing all the time is not fun. No matter what you think about your or your opponents army.
And this strikes me, not a directing this at your mr Pieln, from hobby people. Winning doesn't matter and people just shouldn't care about it, if they want fun. But if someone mentions that they don't like to paint the models, it suddenly becomes a sine qua non to play at all. An unpainted army, or even single models become something barring any enjoyment or fun from playing the game to the point, where some people think it is okey to refuse playing people with unpainted models. That is somehow okey, but wanting to have a good game with a chance to win is not okey. In fact it makes you, some how, a bad person.
I know a lot of folks are really, really finicky about it, and the more competitive, the more finicky. Not because I'm implying competitive people are jerks- they generally aren't; it's just that in a competitive environment, these things matter more.
But from my casual/ Crusade perspective, the overall point is that if you measure from the same spot on the base to the same spot after the move, the distance the model travels will be the same no matter what size base you're using.
If you measure from center to center, theoretically you can hit another model's base from 3.5 MM further away; if the model you're making contact with is also on a 32 base, it you get an extra 3.5, for a total of 7mm.
But because of the way pile in works, I'm not sure how often it would be an issue.
Because GW when it makes a good army it isn't just better it is playing a different kind of a game sometimes, like the eldar flyer lists or castellan lists in 8th, at the same time when an army is bad, it is not just a bit worse then the good, no it is really bad. And while losing ain't fun, it is twice as unfun when you also don't get to do anything with an army, which was not drasticaly cheaper then a working one. Add to this that GW does not advertise that they write the rules in the way they do, and the fact that there is strange idea spread to new players about , just playing what they want. And we get what we have now. People feel cheated of their time and money, even before stuff like being forced in to builds etc happens.
If that's the case then you should leave the hobby or find a different game.
PieInTheSky wrote: ...I realize you're speaking generally, not just to me.
But fwiw, I'm not interesting in "back fitting" or "house ruling" stuff. I like being creative as much (or maybe even more) than the next gamer, but there's an oft underestimated value in "playing by the book". The rules are consistent, non-arbitrary and impartial.
Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.
I can understand if you're playing some kind of competitive battle, but in that case then each team should have exactly the same army regardless, like chess.
But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?
My goal is absolutely just to have fun, but in my experience games are more fun when a) they're close, and b) players got to do what they wanted. I'm happy being the underdog and losing all the time if I get to play the game; losing after a close hard-fought battle over six turns where lots of exciting things happened and lots of things blew up is much more satisfying to me than winning by leafblowering my opponent off the table on turn three. I'm also much happier if I feel like I got to use units I liked and I got to do fluffy or cool things with them than if I feel forced by the game to use units I don't like/not use units I do like, or if I need to do unfluffy things to play the game (ex. AoS Khorne Daemon cannon gunline).
I started writing house rules for 40k because no edition is that good at either making sure games are usually close or letting me use the stuff I want to all at once. 7th has a huge breadth of content and I can bring my 30k Mechanicum robots along, but games are often one-sided and not a lot happens. 4th is much more consistent and fair on the table, but without house rules my Mechanicum army doesn't exist, and my mechanized SM are really handicapping themselves by bringing transports.
I understand the desire to play a straightforward consistent by-the-book edition; my experience is that if I make some extra stuff (even just a minimal-interference patch where I shuffle some points costs around) I'm going to have more fun.
As to the impartiality I get irritated when people accuse me of writing my own rules purely because I care only about winning and want to give myself a leg up. If I were an incompetent designer without the self-awareness to check why I'm doing what I'm doing, sure, but house rules to me are not about winning, they're about improving the game. They're about bringing unsupported or under-supported models, about making sure the game is close and exciting, about doing things that make perfect sense within the setting that GW's never bothered to do because it won't help them sell minis. My goal is absolutely to let people bring the models they like, throw dice, and have a good time.
My biggest gripe is having just purchased all the codex I needed for 8th edition(Space Marines, Primaris, Tyranid, Tau, Ork, Necron, Chaos, Imperial Guard), only to have 9th edition drop around my birthday (June 29th).
So, I picked up a copy of the Idomnitus rule book, and am seriously contemplating NOT getting this editions codex. I just don't trust GW to NOT change editions on me so quickly again. Now I just have to figure out all the changes made in the new Codeci and apply them to my 8th ed ones.
Spacemanvic wrote: My biggest gripe is having just purchased all the codex I needed for 8th edition(Space Marines, Primaris, Tyranid, Tau, Ork, Necron, Chaos, Imperial Guard), only to have 9th edition drop around my birthday (June 29th).
So, I picked up a copy of the Idomnitus rule book, and am seriously contemplating NOT getting this editions codex. I just don't trust GW to NOT change editions on me so quickly again. Now I just have to figure out all the changes made in the new Codeci and apply them to my 8th ed ones.
It gets better - because even some of the newly released 9th edition codexes are already out-dated because the point value tables in the back are tweaked in the muitorium update or whatever it is.
Spacemanvic wrote: My biggest gripe is having just purchased all the codex I needed for 8th edition(Space Marines, Primaris, Tyranid, Tau, Ork, Necron, Chaos, Imperial Guard), only to have 9th edition drop around my birthday (June 29th).
So, I picked up a copy of the Idomnitus rule book, and am seriously contemplating NOT getting this editions codex. I just don't trust GW to NOT change editions on me so quickly again. Now I just have to figure out all the changes made in the new Codeci and apply them to my 8th ed ones.
As soon as the 40K people hopped on wholesale with the 2-3 year edition changes, GW got the message that it could be the norm. It'll be pushed ever closer to a 6 month cycle if they can get away with it. Unless that whole "vote with your wallet" thing happens that never seems to happen.
Well, it happened with Warmaster but people flat out deny it happened.
Lil tough if you're playing Genestealer Cults or Custodes. I don't think Admech have a 5th compatible dex either. Not sure about Harlequins or Deathwatch either.
Think you have to use the 3rd ed Witch Hunters to field Sisters, and when you do there's not going to be any difference between the orders.
I did like the game though, so not slamming anyone for making that choice. Doesn't sound like OP is necessarily looking for campaign play, so you're not missing out on Crusade. More accurately, you are missing out on Crusade, but you'd be missing out on it even if you were using 9th.
I think the Pro-Hammer 5th guys might have rules for armies that weren't given dexes until 8th, but I'm not sure.
I'm gonna go back to this for a second
.witch hunters codex-yes we use it in 5th and it works just fine, not only does it work fine like any other 3rd ed codex. it's rules are far more lore based rather than focusing on different orders for the sake of slight variations.
7th edition codexes can also be directly used without problem by simply following the core rules of 5th-meaning that any rule from 7th must conform to the USRs and standard 5th ed rules
Quick example since i play 7th ed cult mechanicum in 5th- all infantry models in the game move in 3 ways-standard infantry-6" move/d6" run(instead of shooting), 6" assault-cav/beasts/leaping-6" move/d6" run/12" assault
slow and purposeful-2d6" move(take the highest result)/d6" run/2d6" highest result charge so you woulld just ignore all the various odd movement distances from any codex unit in 7th edition
example 2-many mechanicus units have a "dunestrider" rule to represent how they can move through rough terrain. giving them an extra 3" move and assault distance-this would just revert to the 5th ed rule-"move through cover" to represent the same intent without granting extra movement not allowed in 5th.
On the points you just use whats in the codex, we have added a 5th edition addendum-all standard kit became free in 5th so photon, frag and krak grenades etc...are free for every armies standard infantry kit but not upgrades like melta bombs and such
keep in mind GW does not base points values by comparing one army to another army across the game. they base it on how valuable that unit is within it's own codex compared to other units there in.
A 3rd example of how easy it is-As i noted earlier our chaos player uses the 3.5 chaos dex, but he also owns a helldrake and wanted to put it in his list. that works like so-
.base points costs from 7th ed codex-pay points costs for all upgrades and follow their abilities/rules form the 3.5 codex so his helldrake is a base helldrake with the parasitic possession upgrade (it is already has demonic possession in it's base loadout) and the FW flyer upgrade of chaff/flare launchers available for all vehicle flyers in the game.
This also greatly helps out armies like tyranids. we favor the 4th ed codex but as most of you know the only real big bugs that existed in that edition were the carnifex and hive tyrant.
So say you want to add in the exocrine or trygon in your 4th ed list-do the same as above for the helldrake and use the (non-weapon) carnifex biomorph table for upgrades from the 4th ed codex.
You will find the game is very intuitive and fun to play
Larger bases let your unit potentially take a larger initial footprint. As you move around, you still, as a unit, take up roughly the same space so there's no particular range benefits. you still start 24" apart sort of thing, so you don't ever get any additional movement. Potentially, you put your back models out of range by spreading too far.
There is a general benefit, in that with 9th edition, by taking up more space you deny deep strike options to a larger portion of the board.
5th edition, larger bases were a benefit because you could spread further, making blast and teardrop weapons less effective. If I recall, though I might be wrong, it made it a bit more difficult to get a large number of guys into combat against smaller units, but that is probably a mistake on my part.
Overall, WMH is a game of milimeters, 40k is a game of inches. So slightly larger or smaller bases tend to balance out in terms of game mechanics.
Eilif wrote: ,
This probably falls into the category of things you shouldn't worry about until they become a n issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.
If it turns out to be a real issue to your local community (not just a local neckbeard or 2) then the eccentric base adapters I linked to in the last page should quickly and cheaply remedy the situation.
This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be snarky.
How can it not be an issue? They're literally 7mm bigger. Given two models that makes a difference of almost a centimetre and a half.
I'm very open about not having a clue as to how the rules go, but I seem to remember arguing over millimetres back in the day. Either modern players fluff measurements big time (or they just don't apply - haven't read the rules) or I am misunderstanding something out of ignorance. I assume it's the second thing so I'm all ears here...
To be clear, I know it doesn't seem like much over a turn, but it would -- I imagine -- make a huge difference if two armies had different base sizes both in movement speed and also to the size of "hit boxes" and the like.
Sorry, I should have been more clear
I didn't think you were snarky at all.
Figure size and base size are two different questions.
Figure size.
Any GW figure for which rules exist is legal in play. If a player doesn't like your little 2nd edition marines you can tell them to stuff it.
"Hit box"may be a sore spot for some but as I said before the figs are legal. Those who are unhappy you didn't spend a bunch of cash on new figures can stuff it.
The only issue with figure sizes is your personal aesthetic regarding different sizes. My opinion is that not mixing then within the same unit is adequate for making it look right on the tabletop but YMMV.
Base Sizes.
This may be more nuanced. AFAIK,the rules do not require rebasing of any figures and GW has not modified their stand that any figure is legal fielded on the base it was supplied with when new. Also, as long as you are managing distance from the base front it won't affect movement rates.
The nuance is that tournaments may have their own requirements, and your local community might have it's own preferences that could be worth following.
Clearly if you are buying new marines they go on the 32mm basses as that is what is provided. However if you've got (or are borrowing) and old army, my earlier advice stands. Don't worry about it right now. Play it as is and don't worry about rebasing unless:
-you really want to
-the locals say "here's how we do things..."
-you find out that local tournaments are picky about base size.
As soon as the 40K people hopped on wholesale with the 2-3 year edition changes, GW got the message that it could be the norm. It'll be pushed ever closer to a 6 month cycle if they can get away with it. Unless that whole "vote with your wallet" thing happens that never seems to happen.
It happens more than people probably realize. It happened (eventually) in 7th, and it happened at the Sigmar launch as well. In fact, people voted with their wallets so hard at one point, that GW replaced the CEO. I think the issue is that it has to be dramatic for it to matter. Like with the Sigmar launch where, at one point, Space Marines alone were outselling all of Age of Sigmar combined, and stores were even starting to refuse to sell Sigmar merchandise because no one was buying it.
It's also much easier to dip your toes into, so to speak. A box or two of infantry is all you typically need to play most factions. Some factions are "best" with pieces from 3 different boxes, but that's not the usual. I think Tau are one of the hardest hit with wanting Pathfinders, Drones, and either Stealth Suits and/or Crisis suits. Only because Crisis suits are expensive, on top of needing at least one other box, since the drones come in the other kits.
n issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.