120431
Post by: dreadblade
How many people regularly still play a previous edition of 40K? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
We only play 9th, but nobody so far asked to try an older edition. I still got my rulebooks from 3rd - 5th at home in the cellar, though.
I wouldn't say no to it as I know I had fun back then, too.
121430
Post by: ccs
For 40k?
No, not often. Generally in the 1st year or so of a new edition we'll have a tapering off mix of games. It depends upon how fast people adopt the new edition, how quickly people's Codexes arrive, who exactly is playing, etc.
After that it becomes an occasional thing.
I've actually played more previous edition games of WHFB, AoS.2, and Flames of War v.3 in the past two years than retro-40k.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
If I could I would play modified 2nd ed over current 40k any day of the week
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
I want to but my local group isn't that interested.
However, we have a vibrant 30k group going.
100203
Post by: jaredb
Never for any game. Myself and my club always play the current version of the games we play.
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
dreadblade wrote:How many people regularly still play a previous edition? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?
My personal friendgroup recently started playing 5th edition regularly [as I've mentioned before]. The degree to which it's way better than 9th is astounding. Unlike 9th, things die when shot and actions feel like they have results rather than everything feeling spongy and ineffective. But most importantly, the trade off between movement and firepower makes the game feel way more tactical and tense.
For reference:
A unit cannot fire Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapons and Charge.
A unit cannot fire Rapid Fire weapons if it moves and isn't within half range.
A unit cannot fire Heavy Weapons if it moved.
A vehicle can only fire 1 weapon it it moved [except for Lumbering Behemoth and POMS, which allow Leman Russes and Land Raiders to fire one additional weapon]
Vehicles in general feel way better. Most man-portable Light Antitank Weapons aren't effective against MBT's [they're very effective against light AFV's though. Much like real man-portable AT weapons], you need a big tank gun or a meltagun to put down a main battle tank [Ordnance, Armorbane, or both], but if you put the right weapon on the right target, they die quickly. A Vanquisher Gun or Railcannon punches holes through Land Raiders and Leman Russes, and if you get a penetration, the tank has a basically a 5/6 chance of being suppressed and a 1/3 chance of just being gone [1/2 chance for vehicle squadrons, since immobilized becomes wrecked].
And when a Battle Cannon or artillery gun takes a shot at a Marine squad, the Marine squad basically outright dies. None of this spongy crap where an artillery shell registers like half a guy dead [for real, a Basilisk averages 0.42 dead marines in 9th, before any other mitigating factors come into play. It doesn't actually do much better against Guardsmen, for what it's worth.]
And, while weapons feel better and more effective against targets, the game is overall less lethal as well. Because you can't move, shoot, and charge with infantry, and tanks can only fire 1 weapon while moving, the actual amount of weapons being fired and combats being fought is reduced considerably. Units also generally can't split fire, including vehicle squadrons.
The single Force Org Chart is also a major improvement. You've got 1-2 HQ's, 2+ Troops, 0-3 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, and 0-3 Heavy Support, that's it. There's much fewer characters and buffbot characters running around in the game, and overall, those we've generally played with have felt a lot more in line.
It does have it's problems: the big one is would allocation, which can make multiwound infantry notoriously difficult to kill.
The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.
On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.
And the deployment mechanism also generally addresses the 1st player shooting advantage by allowing the 2nd player to counterdeploy. Unlike the current missions, where it's basically everything that can favoring the first player.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
When I play an older edition it's 2nd Ed these days. Not because it's the best (which is 4th imo), but because it has the most 'texture'.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
. . .
The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.
Do the players not alternate deploying units in 5th? I remember really enjoying Dawn of War in 4th but players only deployed one unit at a time iirc.
95410
Post by: ERJAK
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.
See, this is where I can see that we will never see eye to eye. Eternal war end of mission scoring is dead boring and dumping it was one of the best things 40k ever did. Yes, the last turn is more important and it does help the second turn player...at the cost of making every other turn largely irrelevant. In eternal war missions you stand across the table from each other, shoot as much of your opponent's stuff dead as possible, then jump jetbikes or w/e onto objectives on the last turn. A dreadfully boring loop that makes every game essentially the same.
31121
Post by: amanita
Requiring a single multi-wound model to die before a second one receives any wounds takes care of that hiccup from 5th Ed.
125436
Post by: aphyon
dreadblade wrote:How many people regularly still play a previous edition of 40K? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?
You know i have an entire dedicate thread about this here?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page
To answer your questions though
1. Yes we play 5th edition with a few house rules fixes. i would say close to a dozen regular players
2.no trouble at all we have a core group of players who have been playing since 3rd and we build communities by teaching new players to play the older editions with very positive results. there are still a few locked into the "only play the current version" mind set. and they get games as well as nobody is forcing anybody to only play a certain version other than themselves.
3.As for other games-we play a bunch(see my sig)
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Insectum7 wrote:When I play an older edition it's 2nd Ed these days. Not because it's the best (which is 4th imo), but because it has the most 'texture'.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
. . .
The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.
Do the players not alternate deploying units in 5th? I remember really enjoying Dawn of War in 4th but players only deployed one unit at a time iirc.
One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.
ERJAK wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.
See, this is where I can see that we will never see eye to eye. Eternal war end of mission scoring is dead boring and dumping it was one of the best things 40k ever did. Yes, the last turn is more important and it does help the second turn player...at the cost of making every other turn largely irrelevant. In eternal war missions you stand across the table from each other, shoot as much of your opponent's stuff dead as possible, then jump jetbikes or w/e onto objectives on the last turn. A dreadfully boring loop that makes every game essentially the same.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Only nonvehicle nonswarm troops can control objectives, [which, as a side note, is another major improvement because more of any army has to be guys to capture points], which goes a long way to preventing that kind of pop-out.
I think it's a lot better than the progressive scoring model, where the late turns of the game are basically ignorable and the games end quickly and destructively, and vastly superior to the absolutely terrible Maelstrom missions.
amanita wrote:
Requiring a single multi-wound model to die before a second one receives any wounds takes care of that hiccup from 5th Ed.
We play by the book. And actually, we haven't had much of a problem with it. It's written pretty explicitly that this is how it works and this is how it's intended to work, with an example and everything, so it's not like an artefact of unclear rules writing. It's a little awkward, but it's rarely bad. It's just a known facet of the edition that I know that some people don't like.
And of course, implementing what you suggested would have the opposite artefact of having a T5 Warboss body block all the otherwise ID wounds for a squad of T4 Nobz or something, which is I think a worse artefact to have than a couple of Nobz or Terminators being harder to kill with weak weapons. We had this situation all the time in 6th edition, where a character in melee uses the Challenge rules to just body all the hits that would kill off like the entire rest of the squad.
120431
Post by: dreadblade
I've added a poll to see which previous editions get played most.
96506
Post by: Momotaro
Play 3rd Edition with friends, we're gearing up for some 2nd Ed after a couple of good scores on eBay. Also have RT.
Third is decent - gives a good tactical game, and its cheap to collect (the entire line of rulebook + codexes cost me £70). The Org chart, battlefield terrain generators and the list of scenarios in the main rulebook is pretty decent. Cityfight adds some interesting twists to the game.
We don't play the "known" broken combos - we're old fart narrative players who like to play out the "story" of a battle.
2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.
Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
129992
Post by: Tawnis
I'd love to try out RT one of these days, but haven't had a chance. I still have my books back to 3rd ed, but only play current on a regular basis.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
delete
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
I am doing single player scenarios which I record with my digital camera.
Custom rules. Either 2nd or a mix of 3rd-6th.
120048
Post by: PenitentJake
I don't play old editions, but I use pieces of them that are compatible with 9th.
I still use things like Planet Strike missions, Theatres of War, and especially Streets of Death from Urban Conquest.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Momotaro wrote:
2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.
Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
^Watch out for Psykers in 2nd. They can get pretty bonkers. We've specifically not gone very hard on the psyker front (yet), although we do have to use them as one player is a Tyranid player and the Hive Tyrant is always a psyker. Automatically Appended Next Post: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.
Gotcha. Yeah I liked the 4th Ed version of that better, where it was less likely that the first squad of someone would totally push someone into their little 6" strip. It would still happen somewhat, but in order to do so the initial squad had to be more centrally deployed (as opposed to two squads + character spread out), which could make it a little harder to deploy in cover and could lead to the squad being more isolated and vulnerable.
I miss that 3-5 era in general. It was so 'clean'.
111244
Post by: jeff white
Not fortunate enough to be in such a position but exalted a number of responses and am interested in results of this poll… thanks for the thread.
44276
Post by: Lobokai
Since 7th is Horus Heresy games, 7th
72525
Post by: Vector Strike
Nope. Always the most current one
61286
Post by: drbored
GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.
I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.
122274
Post by: SamusDrake
Rogue Trader, 3rd & 8th editions.
My brother and I have grown with the game since 1990 and while we don't play as much now, we still enjoy a game when the opportunity arises.
Due to closed clubs and working different shifts, I've been turning towards solo play to keep the dice rolling.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
drbored wrote:GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.
I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.
There's a distinction between 1st & 2nd / 3rd through 7th / 8th & 9th. 9th is hardly different from the system before it just as many of the middle editions were scarcely different than the ones before ( up until they went off the rails in 7th ). We didn't move to 9th to escape 8th. We moved to 9th, because it improved 8th.
Can I see myself transitioning to old hammer if 10th makes the game worse? Yea, but they'd have to try really hard to torpedo it at this point.
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Daedalus81 wrote:drbored wrote:GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.
I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.
There's a distinction between 1st & 2nd / 3rd through 7th / 8th & 9th. 9th is hardly different from the system before it just as many of the middle editions were scarcely different than the ones before ( up until they went off the rails in 7th ). We didn't move to 9th to escape 8th. We moved to 9th, because it improved 8th.
Can I see myself transitioning to old hammer if 10th makes the game worse? Yea, but they'd have to try really hard to torpedo it at this point.
That's why we started playing 5th. I felt that 9th was bad enough, with the Space Marine Supplements and missions and spongyness and subfaction escalation and campaign books and everything, that I said that we should try playing 5th. And we did, and one of my friends really liked it, and the other didn't care enough either way, so now we play more 5th than 9th.
9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.
In my opinion, it got better up to 5th, but started going downhill in 6th [I have a long list of things I don't like about 6th]. 5th is a sort of peak, even with it's problem, which isn't that bad compared to what we've got now.
There are changes I'd make, but I'm not going to make them because it's mostly matters of how I think things should be, and we're happy to play 5th.
Insectum7 wrote: Momotaro wrote:
2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.
Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
^Watch out for Psykers in 2nd. They can get pretty bonkers. We've specifically not gone very hard on the psyker front (yet), although we do have to use them as one player is a Tyranid player and the Hive Tyrant is always a psyker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.
Gotcha. Yeah I liked the 4th Ed version of that better, where it was less likely that the first squad of someone would totally push someone into their little 6" strip. It would still happen somewhat, but in order to do so the initial squad had to be more centrally deployed (as opposed to two squads + character spread out), which could make it a little harder to deploy in cover and could lead to the squad being more isolated and vulnerable.
I miss that 3-5 era in general. It was so 'clean'.
It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.
I'll agree with you about supplements, but there's very little power creep and even less after nerf bats.
Few times in history can I recall diverse such diverse top tables like this - and it isn't just diversity of armies, but of lists, too:
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.
Ahh, just the two IG squads, sure. . . . Well I'm gonna take the opportunity to toot 4th editions horn again and say that the 4th ed IG codex held IG Platoons as a single troops choice, and were explicitly deployed as a single entity for deployment purposes. So using the 4th era codex the "Two Troops and an HQ" could actually be:
Troops:
Two Infantry Platoons
4-10 Infantry squads (2-5 each platoon)
2 Command Squads (1 per platoon)
HQ:
1 Command Platoon
Command Squad
and 0-5 total from the following list:
0-2 Fire Support Squads
0-2 AntiTank Support Squads
0-2 Mortar Support Squads
0-1 Sentinel Support Squadron
0-2 Special Weapons Support Squads
So 145 guardsmen total, with all sorts of firepower Which is awesome (queue C&C Red Alert: Hell March https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUWUtTZvK4)
125436
Post by: aphyon
Daedalus81 wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.
I'll agree with you about supplements, but there's very little power creep and even less after nerf bats.
Few times in history can I recall diverse such diverse top tables like this - and it isn't just diversity of armies, but of lists, too:
Your idea of diverse and mine are different things. posting tournament win/loss rates are completely meaningless to me and are actually the opposite of what i look for in 40K.
My idea of diverse is armies that fit the in universe lore and still function on the table while also being fun to play. winning or loosing is secondary to that.
In our 5th ed group we have a bit of everything cadian guard, DKOK, iron hands, iron warriors, khorne themed chaos forces, salamanders, tau, admech, demon hunters, various flavors of orks & tyranids etc...
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
I'd be curious if anyone voted 7th because they play actual 7th rather than because 30k is 7th.
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Insectum7 wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.
Ahh, just the two IG squads, sure. . . . Well I'm gonna take the opportunity to toot 4th editions horn again and say that the 4th ed IG codex held IG Platoons as a single troops choice, and were explicitly deployed as a single entity for deployment purposes. So using the 4th era codex the "Two Troops and an HQ" could actually be:
We actually had a discussion about that at the time. The 5th IG codex also specifies that a Platoon is a single troops choice as is deployed together. However, there's a note on the mission page that explicitly calls out troop slots with multiple units in them and says that all the units are counted as separate for all respect, and since I was going first and setting up to zone my Tyranid opponent all the way into his back 6", we'd throw him the bone and I'd deploy two squads and a CCS.
All things considered, I have a preference for 5th. Moar tanks!
45234
Post by: Void__Dragon
No, every edition prior to eight is inferior to it and ninth is better than eight.
108848
Post by: Blackie
During 8th I had a few 3rd and 5th editions games. 8th was bad for so long (I got my first codex a year and a half after the edition's release and I played 3 armies) that I actually managed to find some nostalgic players. Now 9th is great and I don't have the need to play oldhammer.
3rd and 5th are still great games though.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, in our gaming group previous editions are not played at all.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
PenitentJake wrote:I don't play old editions, but I use pieces of them that are compatible with 9th. I still use things like Planet Strike missions, Theatres of War, and especially Streets of Death from Urban Conquest. This. Especially narrative resources that aren't too closely connected to their respective editions are an invaluable treasure for creating your own campaigns. Anyways, for the poll itself I would have voted "No", but it seems to be lacking that option. 9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.
120431
Post by: dreadblade
Jidmah wrote:
Anyways, for the poll itself I would have voted "No", but it seems to be lacking that option
The poll question is different to the thread title
39309
Post by: Jidmah
I still don't see a reason why you don't want to have "don't play old editions" as part of your poll.
As a rule of thumb, everyone clicking your thread should have at least one option they can vote.
But doesn't really matter now, adding it late would warp the results anyways.
125436
Post by: aphyon
LOL i noticed that 6th edition has zero votes...as it should be
108848
Post by: Blackie
6th was basically just like 8th, aka a beta version of the real game (edition) that was about to the released.
105256
Post by: Just Tony
Yep, 3rd
118765
Post by: A.T.
Currently playing no edition of 40k, but past attempts to kick off with the newer editions have all fallen flat. 5e or a revised 5e probably has the best chance of drawing the old crowd back in locally after 6e-7e mostly pushed them off.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:We actually had a discussion about that at the time. The 5th IG codex also specifies that a Platoon is a single troops choice as is deployed together. However, there's a note on the mission page that explicitly calls out troop slots with multiple units in them and says that all the units are counted as separate for all respect
I remember it was explicitly two units as a single infantry squad with its dedicated transport counted as both troops choices in the example, despite being the same FoC selection. The problems came when you had an HQ tank and tank escorts picking off the reserves one at a time as they arrived, or a biker captain and two squads of troop bikes screaming up the table with nothing to shoot back.
121430
Post by: ccs
Jidmah wrote:
9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.
Yes, this is often an issue. And sometimes a force doesn't even exist....:(
125436
Post by: aphyon
ccs wrote: Jidmah wrote:
9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.
Yes, this is often an issue. And sometimes a force doesn't even exist....:(
We play 5th with house rules that includes using any codex you like from 3rd-7th within the framework of the 5th ed core rules/ USRs. aside from the expanded units for necrons, sisters or custodes i cannot think of any faction that isn't represented in our games. i or someone in our group currently own physical copies of the most liked codexes for every faction save dark eldar, black templar(sort of-still need to get the 4th ed codex, i have armageddon ) and GSC.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
118765
Post by: A.T.
Jidmah wrote:"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
"Nice true-scale marines".
Vehicles on the other hand...
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
aphyon wrote:
Your idea of diverse and mine are different things. posting tournament win/loss rates are completely meaningless to me and are actually the opposite of what i look for in 40K.
My idea of diverse is armies that fit the in universe lore and still function on the table while also being fun to play. winning or loosing is secondary to that.
In our 5th ed group we have a bit of everything cadian guard, DKOK, iron hands, iron warriors, khorne themed chaos forces, salamanders, tau, admech, demon hunters, various flavors of orks & tyranids etc...
So your definition of diverse is armies that ascribe to rigid guidelines of what exists in the universe?
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
A.T. wrote: Jidmah wrote:"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
"Nice true-scale marines".
Vehicles on the other hand...
Eh: Repulsor = Land Raider, Repulsor Executioner = Land Raider Achilles, Gladiator = Predator/Sicaran variants, Redemptor = some kind of dreadnought? How big is the base?
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Jidmah wrote:How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Jidmah wrote:How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.
You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued
39309
Post by: Jidmah
AnomanderRake wrote:The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls? I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules. Automatically Appended Next Post: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time. You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing. Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?
6846
Post by: solkan
AnomanderRake wrote: Jidmah wrote:How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?
Unless you mean "I cannot field my exact collection of models in their original configuration without any changes" for "collection doesn't exist", I don't know what you mean.
Off the top of my head for Chaos, we've lost
- 3rd edition chaos hounds (which can probably be easily used as flesh hounds)
- Ghost Rider
- That one Khorne machine from 2nd edition
- The various mounted options for chaos lords
- If you own a robot model, you probably have to field it as a hellbrute
- If you had a Chaos army before the Chaos Demons codex, you probably need to reorganize your army unless you really adapt to the summoning rules.
Otherwise, not being able to field a unit exactly as you built it is just as likely to be caused by points changes, or errata. And I can certainly remember a few times where a FAQ/errata came out specifying that some popular wargear combination wasn't allowed.
I'm just saying that comparing 3rd or 5th edition Chaos to 9th edition Chaos, even leaving out Knights, you invalidate a lot more models going from 9th to 5th than 5th to 9th.
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Jidmah wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?
I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.
You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued
Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.
Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?
If you're playing most armies that aren't space marines, your collection is almost entirely usable. Given that everyone in the group I play 5th with has multiple armies, we don't have any problems.
And, in my opinion, the frozen in time unit pool is a positive feature for playing an old edition. There's no release treadmill, which is definitely a plus. And also, for me personally, the fact that it deliberately excludes a lot of units and 'features' that came into the game in 6th like Lords of War, Allies, and Flyers is an upside.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:If you're playing most armies that aren't space marines, your collection is almost entirely usable. Given that everyone in the group I play 5th with has multiple armies, we don't have any problems. And, in my opinion, the frozen in time unit pool is a positive feature for playing an old edition. There's no release treadmill, which is definitely a plus. And also, for me personally, the fact that it deliberately excludes a lot of units and 'features' that came into the game in 6th like Lords of War, Allies, and Flyers is an upside. Sorry, but if you don't understand that "everything released in the last ten years is banned" is all-downside for everyone who didn't play in 5th, I don't know what to tell you. Essentially, you are extremely lucky to be playing in a super-stable group of like-minded players where no one ever stopped playing. For any group with regular fluctuations that continues to recruit people, that approach just doesn't work. Your approach applied to my group would just result almost half the group rejecting the suggestion of playing 5th and that's all there is to it. And that's why I asked aphyon specifically how they made it work, because IIRC they had some sort of system in place that allowed armies to be backwards compatible instead of telling newer players to get off their lawn.
11892
Post by: Shadowbrand
I miss 5th, a lot actually. I don't know if it's just the onset of 30 approaching quickly and I want to relive my youth. But I just do not feel 9th at all. I still all have all my books and should try to gauge interest for it.
105256
Post by: Just Tony
Jidmah wrote: AnomanderRake wrote:The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?
I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.
You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued
Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.
Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?
Check out my 3rd Ed battle reports. My regular opponent is someone who started at the transition from 6th to 7th and his Tyranid force was almost completely able to be backported. From there he's bought a Chaos force that can go modern OR 3rd as well as an Eldar army from eBay explicitly for 3rd.
If that can happen in my club, it can happen anywhere.
For the record it also applies to 6th WFB where we've been expanding our base of players.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
solkan wrote:...Unless you mean "I cannot field my exact collection of models in their original configuration without any changes" for "collection doesn't exist", I don't know what you mean...
My interactions with 9th consist largely of getting tabled in two or three turns and then getting told "well, if you bought different models you could have fun," which I think is pretty much the same phenomenon as telling someone else "well, if you want to play oldhammer you have to buy different models or we have to do some homebrewing." My CSM army, in a literal sense, exists. That doesn't mean I can play the game without walking away from the table afterwards thinking "why did we even bother getting the models out, then?" Automatically Appended Next Post: Jidmah wrote:...Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing. ...
And yet it's the only argument that anyone's ever used to try to convince me that 9th is the greatest edition of 40k ever.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Make no mistake, if you bring the "wrong" models in older editions, your time wont be better.
The difference in this edition is, that armies have a lot more choice to avoid taking bad units. Chaos is in dire need of their 9th books.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
a_typical_hero wrote:Make no mistake, if you bring the "wrong" models in older editions, your time wont be better.
The difference in this edition is, that armies have a lot more choice to avoid taking bad units. Chaos is in dire need of their 9th books.
Yeah. That's the point. 9th isn't better than 7th. 9th isn't worse than 7th. 9th has the exact same problems as 7th for the exact same reasons, and I'd rather face down those problems in an environment where we've all thrown off the tyranny of officialdom and I have license to try and fix some of those problems.
102719
Post by: Gert
You can fix the problems you find now with houserules, I.e. the exact same way you'd be fixing any problems found in previous editions. Unless you're only attending official events like tournaments or campaign weekenders, there is literally nothing stopping you from houseruling.
130337
Post by: soak314
Had a few games of 3E, it's fun going back and seeing how the old systems work, using my modern models. I want to give every edition a try over time. People have their Takes about specific editions and I would also like to have Takes.
Bigger bases on my orks didn't really affect the 3E games I played. Folks can get real anal with model/base equivalency across editions. I find these issues are quickly solved by not being anal about model/base equivalency across editions
3E is nice cuz I can run my Snakebites/Snaggas with specific rules for Feral Orks, which is basically Orks with a guardsman statline using Ork guns, and they have lobbas with catapult rules. I've outshot Tau with them, it's great.
125436
Post by: aphyon
Jidmah wrote:How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
As others have noted-"counts as" works just fine in most cases with only a very few models not having an equal in previous editions. and honestly as catherine has pointed out, other than specific primaris marine units, pretty much every other army out there has access to nearly every model in their collections between 3rd-7th. Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote: aphyon wrote:
Your idea of diverse and mine are different things. posting tournament win/loss rates are completely meaningless to me and are actually the opposite of what i look for in 40K.
My idea of diverse is armies that fit the in universe lore and still function on the table while also being fun to play. winning or loosing is secondary to that.
In our 5th ed group we have a bit of everything cadian guard, DKOK, iron hands, iron warriors, khorne themed chaos forces, salamanders, tau, admech, demon hunters, various flavors of orks & tyranids etc...
So your definition of diverse is armies that ascribe to rigid guidelines of what exists in the universe?
Considering i am playing this game to play in the 40K universe, that would be a YES
If i wanted to play in the MTG universe or starwars or warmachine etc... i will play those other game systems. The in universe lore is what keeps me playing the game and enjoying the battles, more than just winning a war game with miniatures.
Additionally between 3rd-7th there were how many different armies including forge world originals?
.various flavors of marines/imperial guard
.tau
.eldar
.dark eldar
.orks
.tyranids
. GSC
.demon hunters
.witch hunters
.knights
.necrons
.mechanicus
How many factions do you think you need in 40K to make it any more diverse?
114912
Post by: Mezmorki
I'll just note that for people going back to playing 5th, since you've already taken the plunge to play "old hammer" you might as well house rule in a fix for the #1 irritant of 5th edition: wound allocation.
The simplest fix is to just change it so that would allocation works across the whole unit and isn't split up by having different models have different gear getting allocated wounds differently. Instead as the defender, assign a wound a to a model. Once wounded and assuming it has multiple wounds, then the next unsaved wound on the unit has to be applied against the already wounded model. Solves the problem easily and makes things run faster too.
111961
Post by: Inquisitor Lord Katherine
Jidmah wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:If you're playing most armies that aren't space marines, your collection is almost entirely usable. Given that everyone in the group I play 5th with has multiple armies, we don't have any problems.
And, in my opinion, the frozen in time unit pool is a positive feature for playing an old edition. There's no release treadmill, which is definitely a plus. And also, for me personally, the fact that it deliberately excludes a lot of units and 'features' that came into the game in 6th like Lords of War, Allies, and Flyers is an upside.
Sorry, but if you don't understand that "everything released in the last ten years is banned" is all-downside for everyone who didn't play in 5th, I don't know what to tell you.
Essentially, you are extremely lucky to be playing in a super-stable group of like-minded players where no one ever stopped playing. For any group with regular fluctuations that continues to recruit people, that approach just doesn't work.
Your approach applied to my group would just result almost half the group rejecting the suggestion of playing 5th and that's all there is to it.
And that's why I asked aphyon specifically how they made it work, because IIRC they had some sort of system in place that allowed armies to be backwards compatible instead of telling newer players to get off their lawn.
We actually have players who joined in 8th in our group. So far, no problems, in fact, once introduced to it, one of them became a relatively driving factor in keeping 5e games happening.
If you're playing anything but Space Marines, your list of things that are new since 5th is like less than 5 units, usually only 1 or 2 kits. The only real issue is things that still have models, but the models are now way bigger [Oblitz, Bloodthirsty, etc.], which requires finding the old model or kitbashing one in the correct scale.
129388
Post by: Jarms48
I haven't had the chance yet but I'd like to go back to 5th, maybe with some simplifications from 8th/9th.
I'd love the chance to play my 5th edition Guard codex again. I really want someone to let me combine the doctrine and equipment abilities of 4th edition Guard with the 5th edition Guard.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Jidmah wrote:Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.
Funny. That's what GW does each time they release a new Codex. More so, in fact, with 9th thanks to the utterly inane weapon option rules.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
solkan wrote: AnomanderRake wrote: Jidmah wrote:How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.
Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?
Unless you mean "I cannot field my exact collection of models in their original configuration without any changes" for "collection doesn't exist", I don't know what you mean.
Off the top of my head for Chaos, we've lost
- 3rd edition chaos hounds (which can probably be easily used as flesh hounds)
- Ghost Rider
- That one Khorne machine from 2nd edition
- The various mounted options for chaos lords
- If you own a robot model, you probably have to field it as a hellbrute
- If you had a Chaos army before the Chaos Demons codex, you probably need to reorganize your army unless you really adapt to the summoning rules.
Otherwise, not being able to field a unit exactly as you built it is just as likely to be caused by points changes, or errata. And I can certainly remember a few times where a FAQ/errata came out specifying that some popular wargear combination wasn't allowed.
I'm just saying that comparing 3rd or 5th edition Chaos to 9th edition Chaos, even leaving out Knights, you invalidate a lot more models going from 9th to 5th than 5th to 9th.
Otoh you gain a whole lot of chaos models by going back. As you do with eldar corsairs.
118765
Post by: A.T.
Mezmorki wrote:The simplest fix is to just change it so that would allocation works across the whole unit and isn't split up by having different models have different gear getting allocated wounds differently.
Depending on how much players want to deviate from the original you can also retain the original system with two changes -
1) only four target 'groups' in a unit - base gear, upgraded gear, individual characters, and 'hanger-ons' like cenobyte servitors.
2) wounded models in a group take any additional wounds first (excluding characters who are allocated as the player desires).
It simplifies the old rules, still allowing for some would allocation shenanigans and overkill wounds splling onto important models but getting rid of the more abusive edge-cases. As odd as the 5e system was in places it did give the defender something to do beyond rolling dice and picking up models, and also meant that large unit sizes had additional offensive and defensive benefits.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
108848
Post by: Blackie
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If you're playing anything but Space Marines, your list of things that are new since 5th is like less than 5 units, usually only 1 or 2 kits. The only real issue is things that still have models, but the models are now way bigger [Oblitz, Bloodthirsty, etc.], which requires finding the old model or kitbashing one in the correct scale.
Nah, older editions can definitely be played with bigger models or proxies, I've done it several times. There was no aura back then and the difference between "correct size" and "wrong size" wasn't really significant. 32mm or 25mm for example doesn't change anything. Only things that screw things up are very huge models like new ghaz.
And it's perfectly fine to use primaris, both infantries and vehicles, as count as for firstborn marines.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything. In contrast, going back to anything but 8th invalidates everything in my DG army but bolter and plasma plague marines, rhinos, predators and landraiders. But yeah, I got the message last time. Dakkas " 40K General" main purpose has become for grognards to blindly hate on GW and being a dick to people who enjoy any hobby even a tiny bit, and not for finding actual solutions to problems. Everyone saying otherwise is just a dumb sheep. It's no surprise that there exactly zero suggestions on how to solve the issue except "I don't give a feth about other people, I want to play MY way, no compromises."
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
aehm jid...
Count As was brought up?
and for the record insisting on 9th or 8th just as much excludes whole factions.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Jidmah wrote: it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Insectum7 wrote: Jidmah wrote: it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything. Primaris marines have been released four years ago, there are a lot of players who own no trueborn outside of a few exceptions like terminators, devs or chapter-specific units. And due to the surge of popularity during 8th, in many clubs players who started in the last four years outnumber the people who played during 5th. They have stopped being a new thing quite some time ago, and aren't a rare thing by a long shot. Also, once again, it's not comparable. A 5th edition marines army can be played in 9th out of the box. The other direction doesn't work nearly as smooth. And "counts-as" doesn't work for various reasons, among them unit size and wargear loadout.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Can anyone remember where the rules to simplify 2nd close combat were posted? Chap worked out a system using less dice that was faster with mathematically the same outcomes.
123984
Post by: Gnarlly
For my occasional/rare games of 40k these days, I have been focusing on 4th edition rules with a couple tweaks: no defensive (holofield) upgrades for Eldar grav tanks, and Rending operating on a 6 to wound, not a 6 to hit. While I have a lot of nostalgia for 2nd edition, I prefer the rules streamlining that started with 3rd edition and was improved upon for 4th edition (including some of the more controversial rules like Target Priority and abstract terrain). 5th edition's "true line of sight" and wound allocation system were steps back in my opinion, but otherwise I'd be happy playing 5th as well over the current 9th edition ruleset.
108778
Post by: Strg Alt
Insectum7 wrote: Jidmah wrote: it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything.
Correct.
And it wasn't a big surprise to me that they succeeded in finding enough gullible people to do just that.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
Do you people even realize how far removed from reality you are?
120227
Post by: Karol
Well not everyone buys old models because they have bad rules. The surge in recasts of venguard vets and attack bikes we had at the start of 9th, and the sudden need for a chaplain dread in 8th or dual volkite dreads now shows clearly that new people pick old stuff, because they are good or better too. Plus the older models are a lot cheaper then the new stuff. If someone wants to run 10 blade guard they need to buy 3 boxs or get their hands on indomitus, which is not obvious here. 20 Venguard vets on the other hand cost less, you can get them next week and don't have to wait for the next month GW shipment from UK, which may be 2-3 weeks late and missing the models you want.
I know that a lot people bought the BA tactical just for the parts that were in the box too, so they could clone their own stuff.
On the other hand it is true that in a few years, specially if GW nerfs the classic marine stuff, there aren't going to be many non veterans, or non GK players, having an army without primaris.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Most new player just buy whatever box set is currently available, get the start collecting, combat patrol or Christmas megaforces or buy hachette magazines. None of those have any trueborn.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Jidmah wrote:ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve.
Edit: The word is "suckers"
110703
Post by: Galas
Insectum7 wrote: Jidmah wrote:ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve.
Edit: The word is "suckers"
I know people that has 2-4 full 2000+ point marine armies painted in different paint schemes, from different chapters. All of them firstborn. Stop with this moral highhorse crap with people that likes primaris. You don't see how pitty you all look? Complaint about GW and their decisions all you want, but can't you all just stop gaking in other people plates just because you don't enjoy their choices?
We are all grow men and women paying absurds amounts of money for miniature plastic pieces FFS
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Jidmah wrote:Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything. "Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument.
The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army.
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Insectum7 wrote: Jidmah wrote:ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve. Edit: The word is "suckers" I wax *exclusively* talking about players starting over the last four years. Stop moving goalposts. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote: Jidmah wrote:Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything. "Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument. The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army. So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Jidmah wrote: H.B.M.C. wrote: Jidmah wrote:Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything. "Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument.
The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army.
So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?
Or maybe that it's the exact same problem and communities should be trying to find the middle ground where the fewest people need to go buy new stuff rather than saying "we're playing current tournament-standard rules, and if you don't like it you can feth off."
125436
Post by: aphyon
Indeed rake
Had a group come in a couple weeks back and when one of them asked if they could play their "lost and the damned" army in our 5th ed games, needless to say they were pleased with our way of playing.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
aphyon wrote:Indeed rake
Had a group come in a couple weeks back and when one of them asked if they could play their "lost and the damned" army in our 5th ed games, needless to say they were pleased with our way of playing.
Which version did he use?
the campaign one?
125436
Post by: aphyon
Not sure about his list yet, they have not been back in with the holidays and such.
Not to mention many of the players are military given how many bases are nearby, so depending on if they can get the weekend free varies who can come in and when.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Jidmah wrote:So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?
Given I never said anything even remotely similar to the above, my answer to your question would be "No". I really am perplexed at your immediate attempt at a strawman attack. I never said anything about me changing the rules. What the feth are you on about???
39309
Post by: Jidmah
Then maybe you should read threads before responding to them. Hint: It's about how to convince players having existing armies with no rules in older editions to play older editions. You essentially barged in claimed that "feth them, they should buy new models" is a valid solution to the problem.
108848
Post by: Blackie
It depends on the models.
Primaris marines can definitely be used in older editions of 40k. If anything I remember players converting their tacs in order to get "true scale marines" back then .
Proxies and conversions have always been a thing.
125436
Post by: aphyon
Considering primaris armor is basically true scale MKIV maximus armor from 30K they work just fine, the bulky gravis armor could stand in for terminator armor. most of the vehicles as already noted work just fine as their pre-primaris versions. you only get a few rubs with units like inceptors that do not have an equivalent in normal marines.
No sane group of oldhammer players would demand you buy the old models to play. we play the older versions because the game play is more fun to us not to keep up with the GW meta train.
8042
Post by: catbarf
ITT there's a big kerfuffle over how Death Guard are supposed to play older editions. Meanwhile I'm helping my DG-playing buddy homebrew rules to use his new stuff in 5th Ed.
When the edition isn't dependent on stratagems and special rules, I find that making appropriate stats for newer units isn't too difficult- plenty of reference material to draw from. Points is another matter entirely, but we're not playing competitively and can always revise as needed.
125436
Post by: aphyon
It depends on which edition you are using as core. in most cases DG just get an extra T and classic FNP(4+ but does not work against double toughness weapons/AP1&2 weapons) along with all the gifts of nurgle.
|
|