Switch Theme:

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

Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 06:35:59


Post by: Simplycasualgaming


So I got into warhammer with 8th ed. Leading up to it I would watch all these batreps from 7th ed and it made me like space marines and chaos space marines with all the different weapons and such. Then 8th ed came out and it is nothing but boring primaris and CSM sucking. So which oldhammer edition is your favorite, cause I am thinking about talking my friends into trying an older edition for funs.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 07:03:15


Post by: AnomanderRake


5e is probably the most playable out of the box; there are power lists and weird exploits, but you'll find those in every edition. It's the most straightforward in a lot of ways (USRs didn't start to grow all out of proportion until 6th, the morale/vehicle damage rules are streamlined from 4th), almost everyone had a Codex from the same edition (which isn't a guarantee when going back to oldhammer), and you'll find most of the models from today still work.

Mind also that the core rules didn't change a lot between editions between 3rd and 7th, so if someone really likes a Codex from one edition and someone else really likes a Codex from another you could experiment with running them against each other. Mezmorki's Prohammer (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/796101.page) is a core rulebook deliberately set up with doing that in mind.

If you want a currently-supported product rather than having to play around with house rules or digging up FAQs for out-of-print rulebooks you might try 30k, which is a 'historical' game set during the Horus Heresy using the 7e core rules, and is written with a grittier/less superhero-y tone most of the time (Primarchs throw that out the window a bit).

If you want to go far to the weird 1e and 2e had a lot of RPG elements (XP gain, different die sizes, a GM, turning radiuses on vehicles, that kind of thing) that have largely disappeared from modern 40k (some of the remnants are visible in Necromunda).

The only oldhammer approach I definitely wouldn't recommend is playing out-of-the-box 7th, just because there was some poor integration between game scales (Destroyer-strength weapons on relatively small models), some really badly-balanced stuff you won't necessarily notice right off (about 1/3rd of the Craftworld book is unplayable, 1/3rd of it is fine, and 1/3rd of it is some of the most broken stuff ever written), and the rules cross-referencing is almost as bad as it is now in 9th.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 07:19:52


Post by: Gadzilla666


Simplycasualgaming wrote:
So I got into warhammer with 8th ed. Leading up to it I would watch all these batreps from 7th ed and it made me like space marines and chaos space marines with all the different weapons and such. Then 8th ed came out and it is nothing but boring primaris and CSM sucking. So which oldhammer edition is your favorite, cause I am thinking about talking my friends into trying an older edition for funs.

If you want to avoid that particular thing, you'll want to play either 3rd or 4th with the 3.5 Codex, or something like Prohammer that allows you to choose any codex for a particular faction from the 3rd - 7th era, as every codex CSM have had since has been woefully inadequate in its representation of the Legions. Though the 6th edition codex can work if you also use the Traitor Legions supplement and maybe IA13 if you want to use fw units.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 07:20:21


Post by: Insectum7


4th edition. Solid rules, best codexes until the last 6mo or so of that edition maybe. 5th opened up too much Line Of Sight and introduced a big boost to lethality through high AP weapon propagation.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 08:05:32


Post by: Blackie


Definitely 3rd. But it's entirely down to how my factions performed.

4th and 5th are also good, but the armies I played (and still play, SW and orks) were more fun to play in 3rd.

In 4th they were a bit outdated and in 5th their codex were fun but both with a lot of cheese and spammy.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 11:02:44


Post by: A.T.


5th before it got out of hand (or with house rules).
More mobility and a little less swingy than 4th.

----------------

Which codex books you use and how WAAC the players are is as significant if not more significant than the edition of the rules.

The memetic 3.5 chaos codex for example was 50% ordinary codex, 40% useless tat, and 10% solid steaming grade A gorgonzola.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 12:01:07


Post by: The_Real_Chris


2nd ed with the GT limits to characters and psychic powers.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 12:01:56


Post by: Sherrypie


Mine would probably be 4th for rules and 3rd/4th for codices. 5th had a bunch of stuff I didn't care for, like wound allocation and undying vehicles.

3rd had some funny codices, like the 3.5 Guard and CSM, but for example Tyranids had a real blast with their revamp in 4th with units that had all the options in the galaxy (looking at you, Carnifexes) while not dying immediately when the enemy singled out your synapse beasts.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 12:06:41


Post by: shadowsfm


5th was very memorable for me


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 13:09:05


Post by: warhead01


4th was my favorite edition as far as close combat rules. 5th was, for me, a step down from 4th in a lot of ways. Prohammer is probably a good way to get into older edition type rules as you'd just need to find a codex from an older edition. Les investment to get things going.
For CSM's I'd rune from the 3.5 codex and for SM's I might use the4th or 5th edition codex. Nitz had a fun codex back in 3rd or 4th with a lot of unit customization, you could add back the models from 5th probably.
Lots for good choices to pick for most all of the factions with a little negotiations. but the cost to get in should be very low as far as books.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 13:21:20


Post by: Olthannon


3rd Edition was certainly my favourite and easiest to pick up.




Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 13:33:02


Post by: Gnarlly


4th edition is my favorite, but I think 3rd, 4th, or 5th (or one of the homebrews like Prohammer that are based off of these rulesets) would provide a much nicer alternative to the current edition of the game if you prefer more of a tabletop "wargame" type of game versus the card game with unnecessary rules bloat that the current edition has become.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 14:22:09


Post by: H.B.M.C.


3rd.

It collapsed under the weight of all the additional rules and whatnot, but at least that was towards the end of the edition, rather than right from the start like 9th.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 14:59:50


Post by: Mezmorki


Hello OP - ProHammer author here.

I should probably write something up that compares 8th/9th edition to ProHammer, and does so in a way that highlights from what prior "classic" editions the rules are pulled from. ProHammer started out based on 5th edition, but pulled in a number of features from 3rd and 4th edition, added a few things to support compatibility with 6th and 7th edition codexes, and finally added a number of completely new elements that blend well as core rule changes and don't require making adjustments to codexes.

Let me see if I can summarize what it does overall and by game phase.

==========================================================
OVERALL APPROACH
==========================================================

- Reinstate the classic 40k (e.g. 3rd - 5th edition) gameplay feel
- Rules based on 5th edition, but are heavily modified to resolve common complaints with that edition (more below)
- Adds additional nuance and decision-points to the gameplay where it adds to tactical decision making
- Efforts made to reduce lethality and instant-wipe situations across the board (even from a classic 40k standpoint)
- Distinct and clarified vehicle rules (details woven into items below)

==========================================================
CORE METHODS
==========================================================

Measuring
- No premeasuring / free-measuring (if both players wish, it's optional to allow free measuring)

Moving Models
- Individual models in a unit may move or remain stationary, and count as having moved or remained stationary when determining a model's own shooting. Does allow a heavy weapon unit to remain still (firing at full strength) while other members of the unit make minor moves.

Line of Sight
- Clearly defined where LoS is drawn from on vehicle and non-vehicle models
- Clearly defined the "targetable" area of models, which is the body and upper limbs for non-vehicle models and the "hull" of vehicle . Clearly defined what counts as a body or hull (no shooting antennas or sword tips!)
- Uses hybrid Line of Sight rules based on the type of terrain. Area terrain blocks LoS beyond 6" of depth up to the height of the terrain feature. Intervening terrain works based on true LoS (with above clarifications on needing to see the body or hull)

Making Attacks on Non-Vehicles
- Uses classic wound charts for non-vehicle wounding. Depending on the matchup, can be impossible to wound certain targets.
- Instant death causes D3 wounds instead of.... instant death
- When a weapon's AP equals the Armor Save, instead of ignoring armor it instead reduces the armor save roll by 1 (helps everyone's survivorship)

Making Attacks on Vehicles
- Clearly defined vehicle arc's using a standard template and approach relative to the position of the firing models.
- Heavily revised the vehicle damage tables to achieve a better balance point WITHOUT having to use hull points (which are ignored if using 6th + 7th edition codexes). Basic table is less lethal, only destroying on penetrating hit of a 6 ... but....
- Added a +1 to die roll when vehicles are already damaged.
- Added "engines damaged" results, having the movement speed
- Open-topped and AP1 weapons add +1 to the damage roll as well.

==========================================================
MOVEMENT PHASE
==========================================================

- Added explicit reserve sub-phase
- Major revisions to deep strike rules. Units can still scatter but landing in an invalid location no longer instantly-deletes the unit. Instead, your opponent gets to reposition the unit within 12" of the original drop location (this works super well!)
- Units that deep strike MAY still assault (if within 6") - however they lose their charge bonus and the effect of any offense grenades they may have.
- Units may charge after disembarking from vehicles that moved up to 12", but lose their charge bonus and the effect of any offense grenades they may have. Assault vehicles (including open-topped) exempted.
- Units can advance (i.e. run) D6" instead of shooting (per 5th edition). Can't charge afterwards unless the unit has fleet.
- Revised difficult terrain rules to be less punishing when entering difficult terrain. Individual models can move full movement up to the terrain, and may then move into the terrain provided the difficult terrain role (highest of 2D6) allows for that additional movement. More forgiving this way.
- Clarified tank shock rules for vehicles

==========================================================
SHOOTING PHASE
==========================================================

Shooting Sequence
- Active player declares all shooting targets for their units BEFORE making any shooting attacks (declared fire both adds depth to the game AND speeds up the gameplay in our experience)
- Units may split fire ONCE on a successful leadership test, targeting two separate units of their choice. Vehicles may split fire and are treated as having Ld 10.
- Overwatch and reactive fire (see below)

Overwatch + Reactive Fire
- Classic overwatch (from 2nd edition) with refinements. Stationary non-vehicle units may enter overwatch. Overwatch shooting is resolved on the opponents turn at either the start of their shooting phase (but after their movement phase) or after charges have been declared (may only then shoot at a charging enemy unit).
- Overwatch limited targeting enemies within 24" only
- Shooting reactions - units hit by normal shooting attacks (not overwatch fire) may choose to "go to ground" (gain +1 to cover saves, per 5th edition, but lose mobility and only shoot with snap fire next turn) or may choose to "reactively fire" simultaneously with the opposing shooting unit. Reactive fire only allows for 1 shot to be made per firing weapon at AP "-", and the unit then strikes last in close combat (and loses and CC cover benefits).

Resolving Shooting Attacks
- Revised wound allocation process into something that is (we feel) perfect. Clearly define "hittable" models.
- All shooting attacks from one unit to another are "fast rolled" and the method properly handles the allocation from there, even accounting for units with mixed armor of cover saves, multiple wounds, different weapon attack profiles, and where individual models may be out of LoS (all in all a big improvement over 5th).
- After allocating and rolling for wounds + saves, casualties may then be removed from any model in the unit (and already wounded models must take new wounds first). This speeds things up tremendously and "keeps the fun" by lettering the defender decide what models they want to keep alive (and captures the spirit of look out sir and other rules)

Other shooting phase highlights:
- Pinning weapons (per 5th edition) can pin units
- Screening rules (adapted from older editions). Shooting "through" one enemy to hit another means 50% of the successful hits hit the intended target, and the other 50% hit the screening unit.
- Suppression rules - units taking more wounds from a single enemy shooting attack that it has in wounds, and that suffers a casualty must also take a pinning test.
- Can shoot into close combat, with a 50% chance of successful hits hitting your own unit instead.
- Can throw grenades (1 grenade attack per unit)
- Blast weapons: roll to hit as normal. If it hits, template is on target model/location. If it misses, then the template scatters. Models wholly under auto hit, partially under on a 4+
- Rapid fire weapons: can't charge if you shot rapid fire. Shoot once at max range or twice at half range.
- Heavy weapons: if the model moved, only hits on snap fire (6+ to hit)

==========================================================
ASSAULT PHASE
==========================================================

Assault Sequence
- All units declare charges. Must declare charges at a unit you shot at. May declare charges against multiple enemy units.
- Units with charges declared against them may perform overwatch fire (if still in overwatch) OR take reactive fire.
- Charge moves occur
- Melee engagement resolved
- Units engaged in close combat at the start of the phase may choose to voluntarily withdraw at the start of the assault phase. Opposing unit, if not still engaged, may choose to pursue or consolidate.

Resolving Melee engagements
- Clarified the hit/wound/casualty allocation process to be consistent in application with the shooting phase, fast resolving all attacks at a particular initiative step.
- All AP 2/3 weapons (from 6th & 7th ed) treated as power weapons, and negate armor saves

Close Combat Results
- Units on losing side take a break test. If failed will fall back.
- Revised pursuit (e.g. sweeping advance) rules to not be so punishing. Falling back units moves 2D6" and then pursing unit moves 2D6". Each model re-touched in base-to-base gets to make 1 auto-wounding hit with no armor save allowed (invulnerable saves are allowed). If any models are still in base-to-base contact or within 2" engagement range, the units remain locked in combat.
- Units may consolidate into other enemy units (but not sweeping advance into them)

==========================================================
MORALE PHASE
==========================================================

- Consolidated morale phase. Take break tests from suffering 25% or more of current strength or when loosing assaults.
- Clarified how falling back moves, giving players some flexibility to move logically into cover while moving away from enemy models.
- Clarified effects of being broken ad pinned, trapped, reaching the table edge, etc.

==========================================================
PSYCHIC POWERS
==========================================================

- No defined psychic phase.
- Powers drawn from the applicable codex edition for the psyker.
- Modified (rebalanced) standard powers provided for 6th & 7th edition psykers
- Unified approach to determining mastery level for psykers (based on the number of known powers).
- Cap of two powers per turn (even if mastery level is higher)
- Re-worked perils of the warp (slightly less lethal)
- re-worked deny the witch (requires a psyker unit within at least 6" to deny the witch).

==========================================================
UNIVERSAL SPECIAL RULES + UNIT TYPES
==========================================================

- Concise and streamlined list of USR's, pulling across all editions. Tweaked and balanced for consistency.
- Some of the more "spammy" USR's added to unit types (i.e. Hammer of Wrath) toned down in their power/impact.
- Vehicles have "main weapons" at Strength 6 or more. Defensive 5 or less. Can generally fire two main weapons on the move. Only 1 ordinance weapon can be fired.
- Flyers made easier to hit/destroy than standard 6th/7th edition rules. Flyer specific USR's are icing, not a requirement.

==========================================================
ORGANIZING A BATTLE
==========================================================

Army Construction

- Armies may only use a single detachment with a standard force organization chart or an alternative standard chart provided by their codex. Multiple detachments of the same codex force may be taken with opponent's permission.
- No formations (6th/7th edition) may be used.
- Warlord traits and psychic powers, if normally randomly determined by the codex, may instead be selected directly (player choice). Standard warlord traits are available to all codex editions now.

Mission Selection

- Standard 72" x 48" board (6-feet by 4-feet)
- New mission selection process developed, with a greater range of competitive / matched play mission types.
- Clear process for assembling terrain on the map
- Clear process for determining mission parameters and variables (see separate ProHammer Mission Briefing file)
- Clear process for determining exclusive / majority control of objectives based on the types of models/units in proximity

==========================================================
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
==========================================================

Compared to 8th/9th edition, I'd summarize the overall difference as follows:

- More tough & tactical decisions: declared fire, declared charges, no-premeasuring ranges, better movement rules, split fire, flanking vehicles. Larger board opens up decision space in early turns.
- More interactivity: reactive fire & overwatch (feels quasi-alternating activation), going to ground, charge reactions, voluntary withdrawals, casualty removal process, deny the witch, etc.
- More fidelity: Proper morale system with pinning, fleeing, regrouping. More thematic vehicle rules.
- More clarity: processes standardized, streamlined without loosing flair where it counts. Clunky systems like challenges, precision strikes, psychic phase from 6th/7th edition removed.
- More good feelings: Less chances for instant unit destruction, greater survivorship overall, less impact from critical die roll failures, more ways to keep models alive and the battle raging

=========================================================

Well ,this went way too long!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 15:36:28


Post by: Pacific


The_Real_Chris wrote:
2nd ed with the GT limits to characters and psychic powers.


Yes this would be mine too.

The game worked wonderfully at Squad level, the individual combats and those fights being directly visible in the game. I think once the miniature count started being upped significantly, especially with later editions, you end up having to introduce a much greater level of abstraction and don't get the 'connection' with the miniatures on the tabletop. So, I prefer Epic then at that point


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 16:25:32


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd.

It collapsed under the weight of all the additional rules and whatnot, but at least that was towards the end of the edition, rather than right from the start like 9th.
Imo Codex BA "broke" 3rd ed in under 2 years, or something like that. Terrible codex.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 16:58:13


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I've been playing since the end of 5th edition and 9th is the best so far so I'd have to answer the OP's question with "none"


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 17:03:48


Post by: A.T.


 Insectum7 wrote:
Imo Codex BA "broke" 3rd ed in under 2 years, or something like that. Terrible codex.
3e had a lot of 'gotcha' rules and options hidden away, some easier to get to than others. First turn charges, pre-game shooting, invulnerable models, little gems like forgeworlds inferno shells.
Though the BA codex was so tiny it's hard to excuse a designer 'overlooking' its shenanigans.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 19:48:07


Post by: Platuan4th


 AnomanderRake wrote:
5e is probably the most playable out of the box;


I'd argue that the most playable out of the box is 3rd Ed using strictly the lists IN the 3rd ed BBB.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 20:59:23


Post by: Mezmorki


One thing I'll say about OldHammer is that you can find a lot of codexes for pretty cheap used on Amazon. I've gotten any codex I needed from old editions for usually just a few bucks, which is great.

The other upside of OldHammer, assuming you get a group to join you on the endeavor, is that you don't have to play the waiting game of "when will the next codex come out for my army!?" It's all released, it's static, the codex rules aren't going to change on you, etc. It's nice to play with a complete and static ruleset.

If I had to play a "pure" version of the game, I'd be a toss up between 5th edition vs. 4th edition. I'd probably go 5th edition and use the following codexes:

- Space Marines (5th)
- Blood Angles (5th)
- Dark Angles (4th)
- Space Wolves (5th)
- Black Templars (4th)
- Chaos Marines (3.5 edition)
- Orks (3rd) + Feral Orks (3rd, in chapter approved)
- Tyranids (5th probably?)
- Tau (4th)
- Necrons (5th)
- Dark Eldar (5th)
- Eldar (4th, but maybe stretch to 6th and break the rule)
- Imperial Guard (3.5 edition with regimental doctrines, 4th ed catachans also)
- Witch Hunters (3rd edition)
- Daemonhunters (3rd)

I made this crazy codex + edition chart once upon a time for reference:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m5Opo0yRVuHDfnqBTlSDKExlxzpL20rL0jL5d-TeZ2g/edit?usp=sharing




Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 21:37:37


Post by: Da Boss


Prohammer looks like a good way to experience all of the best stuff from older editions to me. But there's something attractive about the simplicity of the 3e rulebook lists. It means no access to a lot of units and factions, but I had a lot of fun with those lists back at the start of 3e.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 21:55:34


Post by: Insectum7


 Platuan4th wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
5e is probably the most playable out of the box;


I'd argue that the most playable out of the box is 3rd Ed using strictly the lists IN the 3rd ed BBB.

It's a pretty good point, that. 2nd ed also provided rules for each faction in the box set too. Including things like Adeptus Arbites too.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 22:29:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I would say 4th edition is my favorite.

There's just not that much wrong with it except a single piece of wargear the Eldar used (holofields) and if you want to use transports you actually have to maneuver carefully (instead of your squad just being fully protected until they destroy the transport vehicle completely).


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 22:34:03


Post by: Simplycasualgaming


 Mezmorki wrote:
Hello OP - ProHammer author here.


I will definitely be checking this out and passing it along to my friends.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 22:58:01


Post by: A.T.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...and if you want to use transports you actually have to maneuver carefully (instead of your squad just being fully protected until they destroy the transport vehicle completely).
I recall that the best place for a transported squad to be was hiding behind their vehicle rather than in it...


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 23:08:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Every edition from 4th through 7th had what I called 'deal beakers"; things that otherwise spoiled the game for me. They weren't necessarily large things either, but they were enough to make me not bother and stick with what we had (which was 3rd at first, and then eventually doing our own rules when we decided we didn't like 4th and later 5th).

Things like "Units disembark on a Penetrating hit". Stupid. No. Hull Points was another. Really a lot of them were vehicle related. I'm very picky about vehicle rules.

It's hard for me to be picky about the vehicle rules in 8th/9th because 8th/9th doesn't have vehicle rules.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 23:30:47


Post by: Mezmorki


A.T. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...and if you want to use transports you actually have to maneuver carefully (instead of your squad just being fully protected until they destroy the transport vehicle completely).
I recall that the best place for a transported squad to be was hiding behind their vehicle rather than in it...


Cool! Let me know if you have questions.

The link the ProHammer thread is in my signature and that thread will link to the docs.

If you're willing to use the 7th Ed codexes, Wahapedia has all of the 7th edition core rules and codex rules hosted in the archive. You can use those codexes with ProHammer.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/03 23:59:00


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Things like "Units disembark on a Penetrating hit". Stupid. No.
That one made a lot of sense to me, personally. The auto-pinning after disembarking post vehicle destruction felt a little harsh, although still made some sense.

But those harsh transport rules sure put a stop to Rhino rushes, thank god.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 00:18:17


Post by: Jarms48


 AnomanderRake wrote:
5e is probably the most playable out of the box; there are power lists and weird exploits, but you'll find those in every edition. It's the most straightforward in a lot of ways (USRs didn't start to grow all out of proportion until 6th, the morale/vehicle damage rules are streamlined from 4th), almost everyone had a Codex from the same edition (which isn't a guarantee when going back to oldhammer), and you'll find most of the models from today still work.


This. 5th edition was probably the closest to a balanced game we ever got. It had issues of course, but nothing a solid FAQ and a few point adjustments couldn't fix.

Then if 5th edition had the same codex release schedule as 8th or 9th edition then it would have been perfect. Many codexes still had to use 4th edition books. Tau, Orks, Eldar, CSM, etc.

If 5th edition was allowed to have another 3 year cycle, we could have seen a lot of customisation come back into the hobby. Say for example an updated 4th edition CSM codex mixed with the flavour of their 3.5 edition codex. Or say a second round of 5th edition codexes, like a second 5th edition Guard codex bringing the restrictions and flavour of the 3.5 edition codex.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 00:28:59


Post by: Ordana


5th. Wasn't that Tau Riptide, Grey Knight psybolt ammo spam, Paladin deathstars and the infamous leafblower?

Donno how I feel about.
I'd probably go with 4th. Every edition has its flaws but not having rhino rushes is probably a very good thing.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 00:44:29


Post by: Jarms48


 Mezmorki wrote:


- Space Marines (5th)
- Blood Angles (5th)
- Dark Angles (4th)
- Space Wolves (5th)
- Black Templars (4th)
- Chaos Marines (3.5 edition)
- Orks (3rd) + Feral Orks (3rd, in chapter approved)
- Tyranids (5th probably?)
- Tau (4th)
- Necrons (5th)
- Dark Eldar (5th)
- Eldar (4th, but maybe stretch to 6th and break the rule)
- Imperial Guard (3.5 edition with regimental doctrines, 4th ed catachans also)
- Witch Hunters (3rd edition)
- Daemonhunters (3rd)


There's going to be some serious balance issues there. As a Guard player who was using 3.5 edition throughout 5th until the Guard dex dropped they just couldn't compete.

The perfect Guard codex would have been 5th edition, with the restrictions and customisations from the 3.5 codex. The restrictions being the pick 5 system.

For example:
- If you wanted to play the old mechanized veteran spam: You'd have to use 1 of your points to unlock the mechanized organisation, then another point to unlock veterans. That means you'd be left with 3 points to unlock additional units like Priests, Tech-Priests, Psykers, Storm Troopers/Scions, Ratlings, Ogryns, or to spend on unlocking additional Equipment/Skills/Drills. The latter typically also costing points. So while the old 5th edition mechanized veteran spam would still have been good, it would have been very restrictive on other units.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 00:52:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Insectum7 wrote:
That one made a lot of sense to me, personally.
A Rhino has it's pintle Combi-Bolter blasted off and the 10 crazed Khornate warriors lusting for blood lose their bottle and dive out its doors?

No.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But those harsh transport rules sure put a stop to Rhino rushes, thank god.
Auto-disembark on penetrating hit did nothing to stop Rhino rushes. Cannot declare a charge after disembarking did that without the need for idiotic rules like auto-disembarking.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 00:53:10


Post by: Insectum7


 Ordana wrote:
5th. Wasn't that Tau Riptide, Grey Knight psybolt ammo spam, Paladin deathstars and the infamous leafblower?
Ya, and return to TLOS, which was terrible.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 01:10:47


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard


I'm not any sort of rules critic, but I remember 3rd being a fun edition. Chapter Approved, Inquisition codexes, Eye of Terror and Armageddon, vehicle design rules, etc. Flyer rules that made (more) sense for the scale.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 01:12:13


Post by: Hellebore


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
3rd.

It collapsed under the weight of all the additional rules and whatnot, but at least that was towards the end of the edition, rather than right from the start like 9th.
Imo Codex BA "broke" 3rd ed in under 2 years, or something like that. Terrible codex.


the 3rd ed BA codex came out the year 3rd ed was released (it was released not long after the space marine codex).

So it broke the game from the first year of release with its black rage charging rules.


IMO 4th was the best of this rules paradigm, partly because it had given us a good LOS rules that didn't require looking at models with their fists in the air to determine if you could hit them...

But also because they'd shifted back to the more indepth codex concept.

However not all codexes were released in 4th ed, making it complicated to play 'purely'.

I'd try to play pure 4th ed codexes if possible, only bringing in a codex if the force wasn't released in 4th (like the 5th ed dark eldar codex).

But IMO, if you were to play any one previous edition, 4th hit a sweet spot of various rules and codex power levels.


EDIT
According to lexicanum, 4th ed saw the release of these factions:

• Space Marines
• Tyranids
• Black Templars
• Tau Empire
• Eldar
• Dark Angels
• Blood Angels
• Chaos Space Marines
• Orks
• Chaos Daemons
• Catachans

iirc 4th ed chaos marines was pretty poor, so maybe going back to 3.5 chaos would work.

I'd default to 3.5 codexes for armies that aren't listed if possible, or go to 5th if necessary.

However 5th started producing stupid books so it's hard to really choose.

5th was also the time when some armies were revamped (Necrons and Dark Eldar specifically), creating a bit of a headache for getting them into 4th ed...


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 01:55:18


Post by: Insectum7


^I'd say the one thing in the 5th ed paradigm that was appreciated, codex wise, was the reintroduction of Combat Squads, and Bolt Pistol, Frag and Krak as default wargear for Marines. But otherwise I always default to the early-mid 4th ed codexes, plus the Chapter Approved stuff like Vehicle Design Rules, Speed Freaks, Kroot army, etc.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 02:13:55


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard


I would like 5th a lot more if it didn't involve using the awful 4th ed Chaos codex. That book was like unbuttered toast.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 02:22:29


Post by: Insectum7


 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
I would like 5th a lot more if it didn't involve using the awful 4th ed Chaos codex. That book was like unbuttered toast.
Chaos 3.5 is the true book of 4th ed. The 4th ed Chaos book came out like mere months before 5th dropped.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 02:28:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Insectum7 wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the true book.
I removed the redundancies from your statement.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 02:40:00


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard


"Oh but Iron Warrior million Basilisk spam reee" - The Internet.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 02:53:48


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You could only take one.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 03:08:39


Post by: Gadzilla666


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the true book.
I removed the redundancies from your statement.


This is true. Every CSM codex after has been a pale comparison, with only supplements to save them (Traitor Legions, Faith and Fury, IA13). And gw has a tendency to release those at the end of editions. And nothing saved the 4th edition Failure.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 03:28:19


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard



This is true. Every CSM codex after has been a pale comparison, with only supplements to save them (Traitor Legions, Faith and Fury, IA13)


Traitor's Hate was another example.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 04:10:16


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the true book.
I removed the redundancies from your statement.
Fair call


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 08:09:38


Post by: Blackie


Jarms48 wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:


- Space Marines (5th)
- Blood Angles (5th)
- Dark Angles (4th)
- Space Wolves (5th)
- Black Templars (4th)
- Chaos Marines (3.5 edition)
- Orks (3rd) + Feral Orks (3rd, in chapter approved)
- Tyranids (5th probably?)
- Tau (4th)
- Necrons (5th)
- Dark Eldar (5th)
- Eldar (4th, but maybe stretch to 6th and break the rule)
- Imperial Guard (3.5 edition with regimental doctrines, 4th ed catachans also)
- Witch Hunters (3rd edition)
- Daemonhunters (3rd)


There's going to be some serious balance issues there. As a Guard player who was using 3.5 edition throughout 5th until the Guard dex dropped they just couldn't compete.



Orks would be in significant disadvantage by using their 3rd edition codex instead of their 4th one vs most of those other codexes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 08:45:37


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard


Yeah, 3rd ed Orks vs 5th ed Necrons? Yikes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 10:30:48


Post by: A.T.


In terms of playing an oldhammer edition (assuming you don't go prohammer), each edition had a few outstanding issues in the rules beyond codex imbalance that you can house rule off the bat. Points level is also significant.

For 5e:
-play at 1500-1850pts.
-wound allocation - split units into squad leaders, upgraded, and basic at most (rather than a seperate 'group' for every unique item combination).
-vehicles - add +1 to the penetrading damage rolls of any vehicle that has suffered one or more weapon destroyed or immobilized effects

Locally we also avoided playing straight-up killpoint games and binned the GK dex.


 Ordana wrote:
5th. Wasn't that Tau Riptide, Grey Knight psybolt ammo spam, Paladin deathstars and the infamous leafblower?
Riptide was 6th edition - the joys of tautide and taudar.
GK came in at the end of 5th as was the height of the Ward trying to break the edition with needless escalation.

Leafblower was solidly 5e, albeit a 2500pt list played on planet bowling ball. Transport rules aside a lot of books just didn't scale to those points whereas guard could 'expand' their force org slots with squadrons and platoons.
2500pts of guard was 2500pts of good units. Something like 3.5 Dark Eldar was at best 1500pts of good units and then scraping the barrel to fill out the rest.


 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
"Oh but Iron Warrior million Basilisk spam reee" - The Internet.
The bulk of the 3.5 codex was fine but its shenanigans game was strong. You could remove or adjust a few of the worst offenders and it would be a perfectly good book - I mean there is no good reason at all why something like Siren should exist, and obliterators are clearly mis-slotted for the edition.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 11:24:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


The biggest thing for me that people forget about 4th was how easy it was to downgrade Pens to glancing. Obscured vehicles, smoke, etc. all meant that your transport was very resistant to pens and having the unit just get yeeted out in front of the enemy.

But you had to be careful and ensure those things, rather than just merrily trundling up the board and taking like 15 penetrating hits that barely bother anyone like in 5th


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 11:58:02


Post by: Blackie


A.T. wrote:

GK came in at the end of 5th as was the height of the Ward trying to break the edition with needless escalation.



Yeah, they came so late in 5th that they weren't really a thing. I don't think I've ever played against GK once during 5th, while they were still quite pouplar in 6-7th and played a lot against GK then.

If I had to revive an oldhammer scene now, with no pre-game toning up/down the lists, I'd certainly ban the GK 5th edition codex.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 12:13:15


Post by: Mezmorki


So the 5th Grey Knight codex lasted all through 6th Ed (all two years of it) and was replaced by a 7th edition 'dex. I feel like the power level between the 5th abs 7th edition books weren't too different, except that nearly everyone had power creeped up by then as well. Thoughts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another question - I didn't play much tyranids back in the day - but what did people think of the power balance between the classic (3rd - 7th) Tyranid codexes?


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 12:52:05


Post by: A.T.


 Mezmorki wrote:
So the 5th Grey Knight codex lasted all through 6th Ed (all two years of it) and was replaced by a 7th edition 'dex. I feel like the power level between the 5th abs 7th edition books weren't too different, except that nearly everyone had power creeped up by then as well. Thoughts?
The first time I ran into GK in 6th was in a doubles game - marines with a side of inquisition ran over them convincingly. The 6e core rules had knocked some of the steam out of them, though they weren't bad as such. Formation lunacy and raw power creep ultimately left them behind.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 15:50:10


Post by: Da Boss


I remember the 5e Guard, Blood Angels and Space Wolves books all being a bit silly. I think the game was better with flyers as an optional unit for special scenarios. 4e Orks is my favourite codex of all time, so many different ways to build an ork army!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 16:58:09


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
That one made a lot of sense to me, personally.
A Rhino has it's pintle Combi-Bolter blasted off and the 10 crazed Khornate warriors lusting for blood lose their bottle and dive out its doors?

No.
More like your tank is taking heavy enough fire to be at risk of exploding with everyone in it, and everybody wants to get out. Imo that's pretty understandable. A Heavy Bolter could only glance a Rhino, so there isn't a auto-disembark threat until something pretty heavy is aimed at it and rolls well.

Also, Khornate Blood Frenzy made Khorne Warriors jump out of their Rhino anyways, before it moves even.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
But those harsh transport rules sure put a stop to Rhino rushes, thank god.
Auto-disembark on penetrating hit did nothing to stop Rhino rushes. Cannot declare a charge after disembarking did that without the need for idiotic rules like auto-disembarking.
By "those harsh transport rules" I mean the whole set of transport rules, which were much harsher than 3rd ed and includes not being able to charge after disembarkation. That said, open-topped vehicles and Assault Vehicles (Land Raiders) could still move and disembark passengers who could charge. The auto-disembark from penetrating hits was very important there, since DE and Orks could also be "transport-rush" armies and being able to effectively counter them by stalling a unit or two was critical. (One of my primary opponents played both DE and Orks).

If we went back to 4th would I leave the transport rules unchanged? I'd probably tune them a bit. But I don't think they're too outside the realm of reasonable as they are.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 17:06:29


Post by: catbarf


 Mezmorki wrote:
Another question - I didn't play much tyranids back in the day - but what did people think of the power balance between the classic (3rd - 7th) Tyranid codexes?


3rd Ed- Reasonably strong base codex, but could pull some real nasty tricks if you abused the build-your-own-hive-fleet system and mutant mechanics.
4th Ed- Weaker than 3rd, struggled against the star players of 4th but was otherwise fine. This is my pick for most fun Tyranid codex; with lots of characterful options and upgrades.
5th Ed- Bland, weak, poorly written, why Tyranid players hate Robin Cruddace forevermore.
6th Ed- Can't comment, didn't play 6th.

And then Tyranids never got a 7th Ed codex so that was it until 8th.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 17:08:01


Post by: A.T.


 Da Boss wrote:
I remember the 5e Guard, Blood Angels and Space Wolves books all being a bit silly.
5e Wolves came across as a bit of a fandex with stacked up special rules, abilities and other freebies.

BA was more of a standard codex creep IMO with a few things going up but mostly sweeping points cuts and power ups, not all of which were unwarranted. Lack of scoring bikes probably prevented it entirely replacing the generic marine codex.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 17:09:08


Post by: Unit1126PLL


In 4th, you can still charge after disembarking. You just can't do it if you disembark after the transport moved unless you are Open Topped or have Assault Vehicle.

I play Steel Legion in 4th currently (as in my last 4th ed game was Monday) and that's an army that uses all transports for everyone, mandatory, from their codex. I'm having a grand old time, because I understand the rules. Smoke? Everything auto-glances if it otherwise would penetrate. Obscuring? 4+ save to turn a penetrate into a glance. Just two examples - but the main thing is, I don't just fart around inside my transports. I can't play mechvet 5th Edition imperial guard style where the entire army is in tanks forever and no one gets out (but half the squad can still fire with important weapons).

I have to play real mechanized infantry, as in ones that maneuver carefully and disembark close to enemy positions. Not just tanks with +60 point upgrades that gives them an extra 3 Plasma Guns with split fire.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 17:13:55


Post by: Insectum7


 catbarf wrote:

4th Ed- Weaker than 3rd, struggled against the star players of 4th but was otherwise fine. This is my pick for most fun Tyranid codex; with lots of characterful options and upgrades.

^This is where 3.5 - early 4th ed REALLY shined, imo. I didn't collect or play Tyranids, Chaos, Guard etc. But boy did I constantly experiment with making lists for each of those armies just because of how fun their codexes were to experiment with. Great imagery, lots of options, very cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In 4th, you can still charge after disembarking. You just can't do it if you disembark after the transport moved unless you are Open Topped or have Assault Vehicle.

I play Steel Legion in 4th currently (as in my last 4th ed game was Monday) and that's an army that uses all transports for everyone, mandatory, from their codex. I'm having a grand old time, because I understand the rules. Smoke? Everything auto-glances if it otherwise would penetrate. Obscuring? 4+ save to turn a penetrate into a glance. Just two examples - but the main thing is, I don't just fart around inside my transports. I can't play mechvet 5th Edition imperial guard style where the entire army is in tanks forever and no one gets out (but half the squad can still fire with important weapons).

I have to play real mechanized infantry, as in ones that maneuver carefully and disembark close to enemy positions. Not just tanks with +60 point upgrades that gives them an extra 3 Plasma Guns with split fire.

Thanks for the clarification. And oh yeah, Smoke Launchers! I totally forgot they worked like that.

God I want to go back and play 4th so bad now!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 19:08:50


Post by: Da Boss


I was a bit miserable for a chunk of 4e because I was waiting for my ork codex to be updated. I was flat broke so I didn't really have the money to change it too much and not great at conversions so I didn't have much stuff that wasn't an official model. 5e came out pretty soon after the codex was released and I've always thought of it as being the 5e codex because of that. I should really give 4e another look though because a lot of my favourite codex books came out back then.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 19:56:04


Post by: Insectum7


 Da Boss wrote:
I was a bit miserable for a chunk of 4e because I was waiting for my ork codex to be updated. I was flat broke so I didn't really have the money to change it too much and not great at conversions so I didn't have much stuff that wasn't an official model. 5e came out pretty soon after the codex was released and I've always thought of it as being the 5e codex because of that. I should really give 4e another look though because a lot of my favourite codex books came out back then.
Yeah I think the Ork book was about 10 years old by the time it got updated at the end of 4th. My brother played Orks and Dark Eldar, and both of those books went about a decade before being updated.

Orks at least got some love in the shape of Codex Armageddon, where they got Speed Freaks, and Chapter Approved, where they got Feral Orks. He also leaned on conversions in the form of Looted Vehicles and eventually custom vehicles using the Vehicle Design Rules. And I'll curse Zzap Guns forever because of it


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 20:51:26


Post by: RandomHeretic


I would also vote for 4th edition being the best.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 20:52:53


Post by: warhead01


 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
Yeah, 3rd ed Orks vs 5th ed Necrons? Yikes.

I'll take the 3rd edition orks against that any time.
The 4th edition codex would have been decent if it had the 3rd edition Armory options.


3rd edition Blood Angels seem strong with that first turn charge but there was a Nidz list that dropped Genestelers right into close combat from deepstrike.
An d Kroot merks had a devastating first turn charge game, which could easily be stopped with a few empty transports parked as far forward as possible.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/04 23:56:55


Post by: PenitentJake


Prohammer question:

GSC can be played via the 7th ed GSC dex?

Other thoughts on Oldhammer editions:

I liked the Witch Hunter and Daemon Hunter books. GW's failure to put out an Alien Hunter Dex to complete the trifecta was the great tragedy of that edition for me... That and the demise of GSC- though Tim Huckleberry's Citadel Journal GSC list was pretty cool.

Sisters dexes 2,3,8,9. Anything else might as well have never existed.

Good GSC + Good Sisters in the same ed is one of the reasons I like 8/9.

It remains to be seen whether 9th follows in 8th's footsteps in terms of providing a dex for every faction, or if we're returning to the pre-8th mess which was "You'll get a dex if you're one of the lucky ones."

To me, that's the worst thing that many of the folks who romanticize previous editions tend to glance over.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/05 02:25:01


Post by: A.T.


PenitentJake wrote:
GW's failure to put out an Alien Hunter Dex to complete the trifecta was the great tragedy of that edition for me
There were Deathwatch rules in 3rd edition, and from the article:
"Up to one Kill Team can be included in any Imperium army as an HQ choice (an army list entry follows). For this purpose, an Imperium army will consist of any Space Marine army picked from only Codex Space Marines*, any Imperial Guard army (including Catachans, Steel Legion, and the like), or any Inquisitorial army (Daemonhunters, Witch Hunters, or Alien Hunters)."

I wonder how far along the codex was, and if it was anything more than the shared inquisition units and 20pt space marines with meltabombs, true grit, deepstrike, and expensive ammo options.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/05 02:45:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


GSC had a fun 3rd edition list right alongside witch hunters.

I still remember the hilarious model limousine cars you got as the dedicated transports for the HQ choices, like they were mob bosses.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/05 04:29:44


Post by: Cap'n Facebeard


Just out of curiosity I dug out my old Chapter Approved books and decided to see if I could replicate a modern vehicle using the VDR.

I'm sure someone would poo-poo my design, but the Knight Paladin I made came out at 370 points, which isn't too far off the 7th ed cost


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/05 05:53:38


Post by: aphyon


Simplycasualgaming wrote:So I got into warhammer with 8th ed. Leading up to it I would watch all these batreps from 7th ed and it made me like space marines and chaos space marines with all the different weapons and such. Then 8th ed came out and it is nothing but boring primaris and CSM sucking. So which oldhammer edition is your favorite, cause I am thinking about talking my friends into trying an older edition for funs.



I have a dedicated thread on here for this very topic.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

Mezmorki has done impressive work with his prohammer project.
However our group avoids making any of our own rules. because 3rd-7th are cross compatible all we did was import a few rules from editions 3, 4, 6, & 7 into 5th because 5th has the best overall core rules. but some of the rules were done better in other editions (like overwatch, and grenade throwing, both of which work well in 5th considering how much less lethal the game is overall).

We play it regularly and crossing over codexes form one edition to the other against each other within the confines of 5th edition and have found that it is not imbalanced. Even when we import newer models into the older codexes(very easy to do as i explain in my topic).

The key is to have the right mindset for the game. it was never intended to be tournament balanced. it was meant to be- a game among friends where you play the factions strengths and weaknesses in the way they would behave in the 40K universe-. As such many of the 3rd and 4th edition codexes and themed lists are favorites among the players. playing the game is the best part about it, winning or losing is just a way to end the adventure.

Mezmorki wrote:One thing I'll say about OldHammer is that you can find a lot of codexes for pretty cheap used on Amazon. I've gotten any codex I needed from old editions for usually just a few bucks, which is great.

The other upside of OldHammer, assuming you get a group to join you on the endeavor, is that you don't have to play the waiting game of "when will the next codex come out for my army!?" It's all released, it's static, the codex rules aren't going to change on you, etc. It's nice to play with a complete and static ruleset.

If I had to play a "pure" version of the game, I'd be a toss up between 5th edition vs. 4th edition. I'd probably go 5th edition and use the following codexes:

- Space Marines (5th)
- Blood Angles (5th)
- Dark Angles (4th)
- Space Wolves (5th)
- Black Templars (4th)
- Chaos Marines (3.5 edition)
- Orks (3rd) + Feral Orks (3rd, in chapter approved)
- Tyranids (5th probably?)
- Tau (4th)
- Necrons (5th)
- Dark Eldar (5th)
- Eldar (4th, but maybe stretch to 6th and break the rule)
- Imperial Guard (3.5 edition with regimental doctrines, 4th ed catachans also)
- Witch Hunters (3rd edition)
- Daemonhunters (3rd)

I made this crazy codex + edition chart once upon a time for reference:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1m5Opo0yRVuHDfnqBTlSDKExlxzpL20rL0jL5d-TeZ2g/edit?usp=sharing




I mostly agree with this list with a few exceptions

.Dark angels-3.5 mini dex it may not have as many options as the 4th ed codex but it has all the flavor and theme that makes them dark angels.
.Orks-definatley 4th ed codex, it was used half way through 5th and has so much fun in it.
.Tyranids-again 4th ed codex. some of the best biomorph options for making unique armies and quite good for importing newer bugs into.
.imperial guard-5th hands down. 3rd had the doctrines, and we miss them but they are not worth loosing the options in the 5th ed book.
.addendum to imperial guard-3rd edition chapter approved imperial guard armored company-one of the guys at the store uses it.
.gene stealer cults 7th
.mechanicus 7th
.pure chaos demon armies-4th (without the summoning free armies spam)




Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/05 18:32:01


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
GSC had a fun 3rd edition list right alongside witch hunters.

I still remember the hilarious model limousine cars you got as the dedicated transports for the HQ choices, like they were mob bosses.


Wargames Exclusive still makes a "Genecult Limousine" - IMHO it isn't as cool as the rest of their car kits because there are issues with the wheels... But it's still not a bad model. I forget whether the Cult Limo was in the official 2nd ed GSC list. I think I might still have that dex- if so I'll check when I get home. I know it was in the RT era WD list, and Tim Huckleberry's 3rd ed Citadel Journal list.

My favourite part of the 3rd ed Huckleberry list was the Young Patriarch option. It cost less, and was a lower level psyker, but it was as fast as a regular purestrain in a list where a typical patriarch was not. This was one of those things that foreshadowed the progression system that comes with Crusade, and it was one of the things that turned me onto campaign style 40k/ RPG fusion. Another from the same era and source was the Citadel Journal Covert X campaign- formative moments in a lifetime of 40k.

Incidentally, the classic metal GSC range was really cool for this, because they have an old bloated Patriarch in a throne and a running patriarch who is still obviously more wizened than a purestrain, but still young enough to move and fight like one. I am fortunate enough to have both models, so my patriarch will grow with the Crusade- he's represented by a plain old Spacehulk purestrain until he's blooded, then he become the Spacehulk Patriarch until he reaches Heroic, at which point he gets the metal running model, and once he goes Legendary, he'll get his throne.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 02:05:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


PenitentJake wrote:
My favourite part of the 3rd ed Huckleberry list was the Young Patriarch option. It cost less, and was a lower level psyker, but it was as fast as a regular purestrain in a list where a typical patriarch was not. This was one of those things that foreshadowed the progression system that comes with Crusade, and it was one of the things that turned me onto campaign style 40k/ RPG fusion. Another from the same era and source was the Citadel Journal Covert X campaign- formative moments in a lifetime of 40k.
I worked with Tim on many of the 40k RPG books. We were never allowed to make references to Genestealer Cults except in the most oblique manner possible as we lived in the time of Alan Merritt, who didn't like GSC as a faction and therefore they weren't part of the game. It annoyed me, but I can only imagine how much it annoyed Tim, given his history with the faction.

Dark Heresy 2.0 was done and dusted by the time the revamped GSC got revealed to the world. Such a shame...



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 04:28:15


Post by: Insectum7


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
. . . Alan Merritt, who didn't like GSC as a faction and therefore they weren't part of the game. It annoyed me, but I can only imagine how much it annoyed him, given his history with the faction.


Huh? So many questions


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 11:56:33


Post by: Dysartes


 Insectum7 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
. . . Alan Merritt, who didn't like GSC as a faction and therefore they weren't part of the game. It annoyed me, but I can only imagine how much it annoyed him, given his history with the faction.


Huh? So many questions

I think HBMC is referring to Tim Huckleberry in the second sentence, not Alan Merritt.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 13:03:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I went and edited my original post to make it clearer.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 15:53:47


Post by: Jayden63


 Blackie wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:
 Mezmorki wrote:


- Space Marines (5th)
- Blood Angles (5th)
- Dark Angles (4th)
- Space Wolves (5th)
- Black Templars (4th)
- Chaos Marines (3.5 edition)
- Orks (3rd) + Feral Orks (3rd, in chapter approved)
- Tyranids (5th probably?)
- Tau (4th)
- Necrons (5th)
- Dark Eldar (5th)
- Eldar (4th, but maybe stretch to 6th and break the rule)
- Imperial Guard (3.5 edition with regimental doctrines, 4th ed catachans also)
- Witch Hunters (3rd edition)
- Daemonhunters (3rd)


There's going to be some serious balance issues there. As a Guard player who was using 3.5 edition throughout 5th until the Guard dex dropped they just couldn't compete.



Orks would be in significant disadvantage by using their 3rd edition codex instead of their 4th one vs most of those other codexes.


I donno, I think the third Ed Orks, with the Speed Feeks supplement could hold up pretty good. The only difference when using the older codex is the lack of free gear. You had to buy your grenades and other squad upgrades that you get for free in newer codex's.

As an example, I took the exact same Tau models and pointed them out using the 4th and 7th Ed codex's. The 7th Ed list was 300 points cheaper for the exact same models, and had more firepower in the form of twin linking, grenades, and built included suit hardware to boot.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 16:09:51


Post by: Da Boss


Boyz were cheaper and had higher str on the charge in the 4e book, and that made a huge difference. Also Lootas were crazy good at dealing with light vehicles.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 16:46:36


Post by: Insectum7


 Da Boss wrote:
Boyz were cheaper and had higher str on the charge in the 4e book, and that made a huge difference. Also Lootas were crazy good at dealing with light vehicles.
Those 3rd ed Choppas tho. . .

The Choppas forcing armor to a 4+ save was brutal. Then Skarboyz with S4 and Choppas were dangerous AF. And the Kult of Spped rules where models would Fall Back to their Trukks and auto-rally? (Iirc) incredibly nasty ability.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 17:47:42


Post by: Jayden63


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Boyz were cheaper and had higher str on the charge in the 4e book, and that made a huge difference. Also Lootas were crazy good at dealing with light vehicles.
Those 3rd ed Choppas tho. . .

The Choppas forcing armor to a 4+ save was brutal. Then Skarboyz with S4 and Choppas were dangerous AF. And the Kult of Spped rules where models would Fall Back to their Trukks and auto-rally? (Iirc) incredibly nasty ability.


Don't forget 3rd Ed Orks biggest advantage. And that is that they double their initiative on the charge. The ability for basic boys to strike at I4 with four attacks each even if for one round was brutal. They just quickly got overpriced as all the newer marines got cheaper and free gear.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 18:06:16


Post by: A.T.


 Jayden63 wrote:
They just quickly got overpriced as all the newer marines got cheaper and free gear.
The free grenades didn't happen until the early 5e-style books (4e Dark Angels and CSM).
4e marines were the old style gun only troops that paid 15pts to even look at the armoury page, wasn't until about a year after 4e orks that they got their freebies.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 18:41:54


Post by: Da Boss


I never liked Choppas as it was so obvious that they were designed with marines in mind. S4 was a boost against everyone, for significantly fewer points per model, without weird outcomes like wrecking terminators for no real reason.
And S9 powerklaws on the charge finally meant we could get penetrating hits against AV14 with something other than a lucky zzap gun shot.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 19:47:10


Post by: Insectum7


 Da Boss wrote:
I never liked Choppas as it was so obvious that they were designed with marines in mind. S4 was a boost against everyone, for significantly fewer points per model, without weird outcomes like wrecking terminators for no real reason.
And S9 powerklaws on the charge finally meant we could get penetrating hits against AV14 with something other than a lucky zzap gun shot.
Iirc the Boyz became even worse after the charge though, since they'd be striking at S3, and without Choppas their damage really dwindled off.

Of course to each their own. I didn't play against the 4th-5th ed codex much, but I had a lot of really good battles vs. The 3rd ed book and expansions.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 20:40:03


Post by: aphyon


I have had all sorts of silly fun fighting the 4th ed ork dex.

It was a bit of an expensive build but i got smashed by a mad doc grotsnik cybork ork list....orks with a 5++ save are surprisingly hard to kill.

earlier this year i did a battle of my 5th ed marine list VS a 4th ed ork horde list, it was a downright bloodletting but the orks managed to pull it off.

Spoiler:


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 22:49:47


Post by: Jayden63


 Da Boss wrote:
I never liked Choppas as it was so obvious that they were designed with marines in mind. S4 was a boost against everyone, for significantly fewer points per model, without weird outcomes like wrecking terminators for no real reason.
And S9 powerklaws on the charge finally meant we could get penetrating hits against AV14 with something other than a lucky zzap gun shot.


It only looks like it was set against marines because power armored armies outnumbered all other armies five to one. And while the Choppa was brutal against terminators, it also helped the boys deal with the big bugs, a few eldar units, and other choice units that popped up from time to time. As for killing AV 14 I never had an issue with it as I brought tank bustas with their ever glorious tank Busta bombs. Early editions had units that were designed for a specific battlefield roll, not every unit had to be able to counter everything.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/06 23:40:14


Post by: kurhanik


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
My favourite part of the 3rd ed Huckleberry list was the Young Patriarch option. It cost less, and was a lower level psyker, but it was as fast as a regular purestrain in a list where a typical patriarch was not. This was one of those things that foreshadowed the progression system that comes with Crusade, and it was one of the things that turned me onto campaign style 40k/ RPG fusion. Another from the same era and source was the Citadel Journal Covert X campaign- formative moments in a lifetime of 40k.
I worked with Tim on many of the 40k RPG books. We were never allowed to make references to Genestealer Cults except in the most oblique manner possible as we lived in the time of Alan Merritt, who didn't like GSC as a faction and therefore they weren't part of the game. It annoyed me, but I can only imagine how much it annoyed Tim, given his history with the faction.

Dark Heresy 2.0 was done and dusted by the time the revamped GSC got revealed to the world. Such a shame...



Huh, is that why it is so hard finding a statline for genestealers in those books? I remember spending half of an afternoon looking once in prep for a campaign (the players took the other hook/mission so it was moot anyways), and it took me looking online eventually to learn that they are called Stalkers. Doing a casual reread of that section the actual word "Tyranid" only comes up like one time total like 3 pages earlier too.

That is kind of a shame, as hunting a Genestealer Cult is one of the first things I would think of for an Inquisition rpg.



For the actual topic at hand, I am partial to 4th, and the girlfriend likes 5th, so on the rare chances we get to play, we usually do one of those. We have looked into Prohammer too as that seems promising.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/07 09:08:51


Post by: Blackie


 Jayden63 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
Boyz were cheaper and had higher str on the charge in the 4e book, and that made a huge difference. Also Lootas were crazy good at dealing with light vehicles.
Those 3rd ed Choppas tho. . .

The Choppas forcing armor to a 4+ save was brutal. Then Skarboyz with S4 and Choppas were dangerous AF. And the Kult of Spped rules where models would Fall Back to their Trukks and auto-rally? (Iirc) incredibly nasty ability.


Don't forget 3rd Ed Orks biggest advantage. And that is that they double their initiative on the charge. The ability for basic boys to strike at I4 with four attacks each even if for one round was brutal. They just quickly got overpriced as all the newer marines got cheaper and free gear.


Orks buffs were massive in 4th edition codex.

Boyz were 6ppm, nobz/nob bikers were among the best units in the game (not even a unit in 3rd) and with a warboss/ghaz they were troops, big mek with KFF was just an upgrade for the warboss' bodyguards in 3rd while a very effective supporting character in 4th, battlewagon gained AV14 in the front, an extremely powerful melee weapon, the rolla, and lost the 0-1 restriction, lootas were useless in 3rd and became a very powerful unit in 4th. Mek gunz and killa kanz improved their BS, they used to hit on 5s like any other ork unit in 3rd. A lot of other stuff went cheaper. Bikes and dreads could have been taken as troops as well in 4th with the appropriate HQ. Named characters were part of the standard roster, not only available if the opponent gave consent. Ghaz was available even for games below the 2000 points. Kommandos, especially joined by Snikrot, had finally a role in the army. Etc....

Only real advantage that orks lost when the 4th codex was released was the AP for choppas. In 3rd they limited the enemy save to 4+ which was extremely useful against power and terminator armours. Against armies with 4+ or lower saves it was completely useless though.

The 3rd edition book is really cool, I loved it. But it doesn't compare well with 4th-5th edition codexes, they'd need their portion of cheese just like the other armies. 3rd edition codex and its supplement (also cool but there's nothing competitive in that) are ok if also all the other armies use the same edition's codex.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/07 10:05:58


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 kurhanik wrote:
Huh, is that why it is so hard finding a statline for genestealers in those books? I remember spending half of an afternoon looking once in prep for a campaign (the players took the other hook/mission so it was moot anyways), and it took me looking online eventually to learn that they are called Stalkers. Doing a casual reread of that section the actual word "Tyranid" only comes up like one time total like 3 pages earlier too.
There were stats for Genestealers scattered around a few books, and you'll find most of the Tyranids that existed at the time in Deathwatch rules, but we never got to put in Hybrids or the Magus or Patriarch.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/16 15:28:15


Post by: IronBob


I would say 2nd Edition for me was the most fun and most narrative of the editions. I still have the books for it. There was a lot of RPG elements in it which made the time invested in painting your models that much more enjoyable. More so when you had a gretchin take a terminator down in Close combat when the terminator had a 3+ armour save on 2D6


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/19 10:49:00


Post by: Pacific


Yes I would say the autogun to the terminator eye socket was a favourite 2nd edition moment of mine too

It usually seemed to happen after the terminator had shrugged off battlecannon and heavy plasma hits!

Also the marine commander charging in and tripping over their shoelaces, rolling something like a triple 1 'fumble' and being nailed by an Imperial Guardsman and his knife in close combat, thanks to the very variable close combat system.





Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/20 22:31:29


Post by: Strg Alt


Nah, nothing like that. An acquaintance took command of my Nurgle CSM and two of his five Terminators managed to get killed by Eldar sniper rifles in turn 1.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/27 18:16:15


Post by: Crumbum


5th edition is the best. If you include the Imperial Armour and other addendums you have access to all the factions, including Feral Orks and Genestealer cults.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/27 23:35:33


Post by: PenitentJake


Crumbum wrote:
5th edition is the best. If you include the Imperial Armour and other addendums you have access to all the factions, including Feral Orks and Genestealer cults.



Really?

I never purchased any of the Imperial Armour books, but I certainly don't remember seeing any GSC models on forgeworld's site. Do you mean "there was a doctrine that allowed you to field IG + Purestrains + the Space Hulk Patriarch?"

If so, I'd say that while it's certainly better than nothing, I'd hardly call that a Genestealer Cult.

But as I said, I'm pretty much in the dark when it comes to Imperial Armour- Forgeworld, with it's higher-priced, online only, exclusively resin range never seemed particularly accessible to me, so I never bothered.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 10:45:01


Post by: Grimtuff


PenitentJake wrote:
Crumbum wrote:
5th edition is the best. If you include the Imperial Armour and other addendums you have access to all the factions, including Feral Orks and Genestealer cults.



Really?

I never purchased any of the Imperial Armour books, but I certainly don't remember seeing any GSC models on forgeworld's site. Do you mean "there was a doctrine that allowed you to field IG + Purestrains + the Space Hulk Patriarch?"

If so, I'd say that while it's certainly better than nothing, I'd hardly call that a Genestealer Cult.

But as I said, I'm pretty much in the dark when it comes to Imperial Armour- Forgeworld, with it's higher-priced, online only, exclusively resin range never seemed particularly accessible to me, so I never bothered.


If by "other addendums" they mean the Citadel Journal, then there was a GSC list in issues 40 and 41. Fully compatible with 5th as it was written during 3rd ed.
Feral Orks appeared in White Dwarf then in one of the Chapter Approved books.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 13:54:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Those works better in 4th imo. :p and the GSC list got reprinted in the big Chapter Approved books (I fondly remember the limousines).

Feral Orks and Kroot Mercenaries were available in the same fashion.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 16:16:52


Post by: Grimtuff


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those works better in 4th imo. :p and the GSC list got reprinted in the big Chapter Approved books (I fondly remember the limousines).

Feral Orks and Kroot Mercenaries were available in the same fashion.


The Tim Huckleberry GSC list (the one I'm referring to) was never printed in CA, it was only in the Journal. Same goes for the Harlequin list of the same era.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 16:50:50


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Those works better in 4th imo. :p and the GSC list got reprinted in the big Chapter Approved books (I fondly remember the limousines).

Feral Orks and Kroot Mercenaries were available in the same fashion.


The Tim Huckleberry GSC list (the one I'm referring to) was never printed in CA, it was only in the Journal. Same goes for the Harlequin list of the same era.


Interesting; I'm fairly certain the old CAs I have (the 2002, 2003, and 2004 megabooks) have a GSC list in them. I may be misremembering another article or something. I will have to go look through them.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 18:21:06


Post by: Vaktathi


5th is probably the most functional edition of oldhammer taken as a whole. None of them are perfect, they all have gaping flaws, and for everything a core edition gets right the codex releases will bork. Which is best will probably depend on what army you play. If you're an Eldar player, 3E and 4E will be golden years, if you're a Guard player, 5E will be remembered fondly, if you play Blood Angels, 3E will have been halcyon days.

With 5th, that introduced Kill Points instead of the old Victory Points, Wound Allocation is deeply flawed, everything gets 4+ cover all the time, etc.

With 4E, if your transport has tracks it's a non-functional deathtrap and if your vehicle doesn't fly expect it to be pretty easily killed, anything that's a Skimmer however is going to be an unholy nightmare to kill, particularly anything Eldar and to a lesser extent Tau. Enjoy flying MC's hiding behind area terrain and diving into close combat turn 2, eating a unit ever fight phase, and never getting to be shot at the whole game. If you're playing with mission levels or strategy ratings, expect one side to get hard screwed by the mission guidelines.

3E is super barebones, has most of the drawbacks of 4E and even clunkier rules, particularly CC related.

 Grimtuff wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Crumbum wrote:
5th edition is the best. If you include the Imperial Armour and other addendums you have access to all the factions, including Feral Orks and Genestealer cults.



Really?

I never purchased any of the Imperial Armour books, but I certainly don't remember seeing any GSC models on forgeworld's site. Do you mean "there was a doctrine that allowed you to field IG + Purestrains + the Space Hulk Patriarch?"

If so, I'd say that while it's certainly better than nothing, I'd hardly call that a Genestealer Cult.

But as I said, I'm pretty much in the dark when it comes to Imperial Armour- Forgeworld, with it's higher-priced, online only, exclusively resin range never seemed particularly accessible to me, so I never bothered.


If by "other addendums" they mean the Citadel Journal, then there was a GSC list in issues 40 and 41. Fully compatible with 5th as it was written during 3rd ed.
Feral Orks appeared in White Dwarf then in one of the Chapter Approved books.
In all fairness, the Citadel Journals probably would have been even more inaccessible by the time 5E rolled around than anything FW, if for no other reason than most never knew it existed


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 18:45:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


[quote=Vaktathi 801764 11263386 2639c6bd2a42e714227b06646829d6ea.jpg
With 4E, if your transport has tracks it's a non-functional deathtrap and if your vehicle doesn't fly expect it to be pretty easily killed, anything that's a Skimmer however is going to be an unholy nightmare to kill, particularly anything Eldar and to a lesser extent Tau. Enjoy flying MC's hiding behind area terrain and diving into close combat turn 2, eating a unit ever fight phase, and never getting to be shot at the whole game. If you're playing with mission levels or strategy ratings, expect one side to get hard screwed by the mission guidelines.


I play Imperial Guard and vastly prefer 4th - and the army I built for it is Armageddon Steel Legion. I'm ostensibly playing right into the "drawbacks" of the edition.

I think the biggest thing going back for me is playing my Armageddon in 4th and in 9th. People say transports are deathtraps in 4th, but 9th is even worse... 4th feels like my Chimeras are actually Chimeras...

I also play Armored Company, which was way cooler in 4th than Armored Battlegroup was in fifth. The only Armored Battlegroup list I liked as much as the 4th Armored Company list was the sixth edition one with Beast Hunter shells, because it made vanquishers not trash.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 19:08:53


Post by: Da Boss


My memories of the editions are tied really strongly to how Orks played in them. So for most of 3e and 4e I was frustrated with my slightly janky codex with lots of options there were no models for, or really old models for.
End of 4e start of 5e was my favourite time as I had a decent book and a good model selection to work with, and I consider that peak 40K. 5e gradually got derailed in my view with the introduction of flyers and ever more ridiculous codices in the latter half (much like 7e Fantasy, which started really well and was my favourite edition, but then became borderline unplayable by the end due to the Daemon and Dark Elf books, and yeah probably Vampire Counts as well).

I don't think I'll ever play with my 40K stuff the way I did back in 5e again. That was the only time that I was regularly attending multiple tournaments a year and playing at a shop. Up til then it had always been cheap and cheerful club games or games at my house.

I'm going back to that now, just playing with a friend from work, and it's a much more enjoyable experience because I can just pick whatever minis I feel like playing with and whatever rules suit me best. Hopefully we'll get a few more people interested and make a small group, but honestly 4-5 people would be plenty I reckon.

Modern 40K has fixed a lot of the problems I used to have with the older versions, but it seems like it's introduced a whole bunch more, and I'm just not a fan of strategem style "Disassociated mechanics" in my wargames.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 19:34:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


4th edition beats 5th on codex quality alone. Or at least up until 2007 it did.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 19:36:21


Post by: jeff white


Anything 2nd to and including 4th. If I were able, that is in the States or the UK, I would start buying used books from all of these and RT for reference. PDFs are great but paper is more memorable and easier to sort through. At the same time, I would try Mezmorki’s Prohammer.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 19:52:54


Post by: Vaktathi


 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I play Imperial Guard and vastly prefer 4th - and the army I built for it is Armageddon Steel Legion. I'm ostensibly playing right into the "drawbacks" of the edition.

I think the biggest thing going back for me is playing my Armageddon in 4th and in 9th. People say transports are deathtraps in 4th, but 9th is even worse... 4th feels like my Chimeras are actually Chimeras...
I guess I just don't see how chimeras were functional, at all in 4E. I ran them that edition as well, running a mech Stormtrooper list. Just giving them the minimum kit they come with in 5E (smoke, searchlight, guns), they're almost 100pts compared with like 55 in 5E. Don't get me wrong the Chimera is hideously overpriced currently in 9E, but they were insanely expensive in 4E.

More importantly, the 4E transport rules were just insanely punitive.

Penetrate a transport? 50% chance it's dead straight up and inflicting damage on and auto-pinning the survivors for a turn. If the doesn't die, the passengers have to disembark anyway and then take a pinning test, and on top of that the transport now either is immobilized or out a gun, and isn't moving or shooting at all the next turn because it's stunned anyway. If anyone used the top hatch to shoot out, the transport died or was immobilized on 5/6 results. With those side AV10 flanks and the opportunity for even glancing hits to kill, Chimeras were just awful. Literally the first game I ever played with a Chimera in 4E it died to infiltrating Plague marines' bolter fire.

If you're a skimmer though, you can't be penetrated effectively (at least not after auto-take wargear upgrades) in 4E, so units like Devilfish and Wave Serpents never had to worry about it, and had side armor of 11 or even 12 to boot.


I also play Armored Company, which was way cooler in 4th than Armored Battlegroup was in fifth. The only Armored Battlegroup list I liked as much as the 4th Armored Company list was the sixth edition one with Beast Hunter shells, because it made vanquishers not trash.
I could be mis-remembering, but the only 5E AB list I recall was the DKoK one in IA7, otherwise there just wasn't one for 5th, but was otherwise very similar to the 6E one. That said, I'm not sure why the 4E one would be superior, the vehicles broadly would have been less capable and with less variety and fewer unit options if I recall correctly. Not that the DKoK list or 6E list was free of issues, but it was more expansive. I think the biggest issue with the 6E list was the fact that it had to deal with HPs. Ultimately none of the lists were particularly great competitively due to the vehicle rules in each edition and the 5E DK rules being poop for anything involving an actual Krieg unit (that wasn't something generic like a Russ). Likewise, half the mission variants in 4E would have forced the AC to sit in reserve, coming on piecemeal starting turn 2, allowing opponent's to destroy your force in detail a couple units at a time. I just found 4E to be intensely frustrating for IG and especially anything vehicle related for IG in 4E, and they were competitively awful in rankings.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 21:21:29


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Agree to disagree.

Personally, the weakness of transports forces the infantry and mech to work together (like real life) rather than the Chimeras being bunkers and the infantry never needing to disembark until they died.

The 4th Armored Company list had doctrines, whilst Armored Battlegroup did not, meaning you could make your dudes Your Dudes as well as giving the vehicles additional capabilities (e.g. tank shock hurts the enemy / improved side armor / ace gunners).

Lastly, vehicles feel like they use their armor for durability rather than the Damage Chart. For me, in 5th, a Chimera felt durable because it was hard to damage it effectively on the chart, whilst the armor looked like swiss cheese (because as you yourself note, it was bad).

You had absurd situations where you would get like 11 penetrating hits on a Chimera and shake it 7 times, blow off two guns, and stun it three times. That was much MUCH less lily in fourth.

This, in turn, increases the value of armor protection. When the durability of vehicles comes from a lenient damage chart, all vehicles are pretty much as durable as any other (a stun is a stun whether it happens 3 times because your armor is hard to penetrate or 6 times because it is easy).

Also, damage results not punishing passengers meant that Mechanized Infantry ended up being more like Mechanized (sometimes infantry but only if a transport dies) units. Imperial Guard squads became 60 point upgrades to Chimeras, rather than actually having to dismount and participate on their own, in conjunction with their vehicle.

This makes it feel more realistic to me.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/28 23:58:30


Post by: AnomanderRake


The transport buffs in 5th were pretty excessive; individually changing the disembark-on-damage mechanic and the damage table and dropping prices on all the transports were reasonable ideas to make an underused unit type more relevant, but in aggregate they swung way too far the other way and produced transport parking lots.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 03:08:30


Post by: Hellebore


I would use 4th ed as the core and tweak only those bits that were sub optimal.

I liked the Ld test to shoot further away units in 4th and the real world LoS it had (rather than the 'true' los that we have now which is nothing like the real world).

4th over all had the best bones. Tweaking some aspects without changing things would be the best option imo.

5th had improved some bits, but its bones were failing and the codexes made it worse.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 05:30:56


Post by: Jayden63


 Hellebore wrote:
I would use 4th ed as the core and tweak only those bits that were sub optimal.

I liked the Ld test to shoot further away units in 4th and the real world LoS it had (rather than the 'true' los that we have now which is nothing like the real world).

4th over all had the best bones. Tweaking some aspects without changing things would be the best option imo.

5th had improved some bits, but its bones were failing and the codexes made it worse.



I agree. 4th was my favorite edition by a lot. We tweeked the whole entangled transport damage issues and the game ran very smoothly. The real problem was when there were drastic swings in codex power and point costs.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 09:16:12


Post by: Vaktathi


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The transport buffs in 5th were pretty excessive; individually changing the disembark-on-damage mechanic and the damage table and dropping prices on all the transports were reasonable ideas to make an underused unit type more relevant, but in aggregate they swung way too far the other way and produced transport parking lots.
The Rhino in particular was the big offender here, the changes to cover and smoke (and its free inclusion) coupled with the vehicle table changes and the drop in cost, particularly relative to their far more expensive cargo, made them auto-takes.

The other issue is that there just often wasn't anything to do for infantry outside of vehicles. 40k doesn't have mechanics like other games do where infantry can dig in and build field fortifications, spot for artillery, reload weapons, interact with equipment, search for objectives or intel, etc. I think the issue was less with the resiliency of most 5E transports (barring some ubiquitous 4+ cover stuff), more the fact that there wasn't any need to get out of them once they got to where they needed to go unless you wanted to get into CC.

One can look at a game like Dropzone Commander, where your infantry may ride into battle in APC's carried in dropships, but they have to get out and actually do things like search office buildings for intel, or Flames of War where idle infantry can always dig foxholes or clear mines or whatnot, stuff that requires them to be out of a transport doing something of value that isn't necessarily fighting. 40k just never thought that far, "yeah just drive on top with your tank and you claim the objective as long as Troops infantry unit was stuff inside" was as deep as it got, and for the most part still is

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agree to disagree.

Personally, the weakness of transports forces the infantry and mech to work together (like real life) rather than the Chimeras being bunkers and the infantry never needing to disembark until they died.
Recalling 4E, aside from phyically body blocking to keep away charges there's not much they can do to provide actual support (automatic weapons don't pin anything in 40k, lasguns certainly didn't hurt much, especially not at 6ppm and without FRFSRF, their bodies aren't providing a cover save, etc), there just isn't a whole lot of mechanics the game (particularly 4E) provides for that, and if anything they'd just provide an assault springboard to an opponent to consolidate through, and much of the time the Chimera was the most expensive, more valuable asset anyway which made things even more awkward.

The 4th Armored Company list had doctrines, whilst Armored Battlegroup did not, meaning you could make your dudes Your Dudes as well as giving the vehicles additional capabilities (e.g. tank shock hurts the enemy / improved side armor / ace gunners).
Eh, I kinda feel for the doubling or trebling in vehicle count and unit options and massive adjustment in costs, particularly given how situational and expensive those upgrades were, the later lists more than compensated, though I guess that's subjective.

Lastly, vehicles feel like they use their armor for durability rather than the Damage Chart. For me, in 5th, a Chimera felt durable because it was hard to damage it effectively on the chart, whilst the armor looked like swiss cheese (because as you yourself note, it was bad).

You had absurd situations where you would get like 11 penetrating hits on a Chimera and shake it 7 times, blow off two guns, and stun it three times. That was much MUCH less lily in fourth.
Sure that could happen, but you'd be literally orders of magnitude more likely to explode it on the first shot instead even in 5E. That said, even with the 5E damage scheme, you were more likely to kill a 5E Chimera with a Lascannon in one shot than you were a 4E Devilfish unless the 5E Chimera was in cover.


This, in turn, increases the value of armor protection. When the durability of vehicles comes from a lenient damage chart, all vehicles are pretty much as durable as any other (a stun is a stun whether it happens 3 times because your armor is hard to penetrate or 6 times because it is easy).

Also, damage results not punishing passengers meant that Mechanized Infantry ended up being more like Mechanized (sometimes infantry but only if a transport dies) units. Imperial Guard squads became 60 point upgrades to Chimeras, rather than actually having to dismount and participate on their own, in conjunction with their vehicle.

This makes it feel more realistic to me.
Ultimately I guess to me, regardless of realism, it comes down to the fact that a Chimera actually functioned as a light tank and transport in 5E, and just...didn't in 4E

~90-100pts (or more depending on upgrades) for a heavy bolter and a multilaser wasn't particularly cost effective for a light tank at BS3 even back then.

An AV10 box with one AV12 facing that doesn't get SMF+VectoredEngines or SMF+Decoy Launchers was just mechanistically a transport that only worked if nobody shot at it, they had more in common with a Trukk in terms of resiliency than a Wave Serpent or Devilfish, but were far closer to the cost of the latter, with the mobility of none of the above and in some cases substantially less firepower to boot as well. Oh, and unlike the Wave Serpent or Devilfish, the disembarking Chimera passengers can't sit and hide behind their transport and shoot through it without penalty, the Chimera has to swing its booty around and point its single good armor facing away from the enemy in order for troops to not have the tank be blocking LoS, making both the passengers and transport far more difficult and dangerous to use.

There's an argument for 5E that they went too far in some regards, though I don't think that's anything unique to the Chimera (and I'd argue the Rhino is by far the greatest offender of that edition), but in 5E a Chimera could get your guardsmen across the field in the face of some resistance, or could be fielded in sufficient numbers to ensure something made it, and I just never found such to be the case in 4E, and there's a reason Chimeras never showed up in what passed for competitive IG lists at the time.

The issue with 4E isn't unique to the Chimera either. The core game rules in 3E and 4E, as well as 6E and 7E, really had this awkward gap between Skimmers and tracked/walker vehicles. It was expressed differently (SMF downgrading Pens to Glances and then wargear further mitigating damage results vs the later Jink mechanic), but that gap has been very stark and present throughout a lot of 40k history. GW keeps trying to express defense through mobility as being difficult to hurt, and it's never quite worked right.

Anyway, just my remembrance on that slice of 4E, I'm obviously fairly opinionated on the Chimera 5E certainly also had its warts, wound allocation was really absurd and gimmicky, the changeover from VP's to KP's, etc, and with Tau and Eldar having been so tightly written to those 3E/4E vehicle mechanics, those armies certainly ran into issues during 5E in turn just as IG had issues in 4E.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 09:41:49


Post by: jeff white


 Vaktathi wrote:
Spoiler:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
The transport buffs in 5th were pretty excessive; individually changing the disembark-on-damage mechanic and the damage table and dropping prices on all the transports were reasonable ideas to make an underused unit type more relevant, but in aggregate they swung way too far the other way and produced transport parking lots.
The Rhino in particular was the big offender here, the changes to cover and smoke (and its free inclusion) coupled with the vehicle table changes and the drop in cost, particularly relative to their far more expensive cargo, made them auto-takes.

The other issue is that there just often wasn't anything to do for infantry outside of vehicles. 40k doesn't have mechanics like other games do where infantry can dig in and build field fortifications, spot for artillery, reload weapons, interact with equipment, search for objectives or intel, etc. I think the issue was less with the resiliency of most 5E transports (barring some ubiquitous 4+ cover stuff), more the fact that there wasn't any need to get out of them once they got to where they needed to go unless you wanted to get into CC.

One can look at a game like Dropzone Commander, where your infantry may ride into battle in APC's carried in dropships, but they have to get out and actually do things like search office buildings for intel, or Flames of War where idle infantry can always dig foxholes or clear mines or whatnot, stuff that requires them to be out of a transport doing something of value that isn't necessarily fighting. 40k just never thought that far, "yeah just drive on top with your tank and you claim the objective as long as Troops infantry unit was stuff inside" was as deep as it got, and for the most part still is

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agree to disagree.

Personally, the weakness of transports forces the infantry and mech to work together (like real life) rather than the Chimeras being bunkers and the infantry never needing to disembark until they died.
Recalling 4E, aside from phyically body blocking to keep away charges there's not much they can do to provide actual support (automatic weapons don't pin anything in 40k, lasguns certainly didn't hurt much, especially not at 6ppm and without FRFSRF, their bodies aren't providing a cover save, etc), there just isn't a whole lot of mechanics the game (particularly 4E) provides for that, and if anything they'd just provide an assault springboard to an opponent to consolidate through, and much of the time the Chimera was the most expensive, more valuable asset anyway which made things even more awkward.

The 4th Armored Company list had doctrines, whilst Armored Battlegroup did not, meaning you could make your dudes Your Dudes as well as giving the vehicles additional capabilities (e.g. tank shock hurts the enemy / improved side armor / ace gunners).
Eh, I kinda feel for the doubling or trebling in vehicle count and unit options and massive adjustment in costs, particularly given how situational and expensive those upgrades were, the later lists more than compensated, though I guess that's subjective.

Lastly, vehicles feel like they use their armor for durability rather than the Damage Chart. For me, in 5th, a Chimera felt durable because it was hard to damage it effectively on the chart, whilst the armor looked like swiss cheese (because as you yourself note, it was bad).

You had absurd situations where you would get like 11 penetrating hits on a Chimera and shake it 7 times, blow off two guns, and stun it three times. That was much MUCH less lily in fourth.
Sure that could happen, but you'd be literally orders of magnitude more likely to explode it on the first shot instead even in 5E. That said, even with the 5E damage scheme, you were more likely to kill a 5E Chimera with a Lascannon in one shot than you were a 4E Devilfish unless the 5E Chimera was in cover.


This, in turn, increases the value of armor protection. When the durability of vehicles comes from a lenient damage chart, all vehicles are pretty much as durable as any other (a stun is a stun whether it happens 3 times because your armor is hard to penetrate or 6 times because it is easy).

Also, damage results not punishing passengers meant that Mechanized Infantry ended up being more like Mechanized (sometimes infantry but only if a transport dies) units. Imperial Guard squads became 60 point upgrades to Chimeras, rather than actually having to dismount and participate on their own, in conjunction with their vehicle.

This makes it feel more realistic to me.
Ultimately I guess to me, regardless of realism, it comes down to the fact that a Chimera actually functioned as a light tank and transport in 5E, and just...didn't in 4E

~90-100pts (or more depending on upgrades) for a heavy bolter and a multilaser wasn't particularly cost effective for a light tank at BS3 even back then.

An AV10 box with one AV12 facing that doesn't get SMF+VectoredEngines or SMF+Decoy Launchers was just mechanistically a transport that only worked if nobody shot at it, they had more in common with a Trukk in terms of resiliency than a Wave Serpent or Devilfish, but were far closer to the cost of the latter, with the mobility of none of the above and in some cases substantially less firepower to boot as well. Oh, and unlike the Wave Serpent or Devilfish, the disembarking Chimera passengers can't sit and hide behind their transport and shoot through it without penalty, the Chimera has to swing its booty around and point its single good armor facing away from the enemy in order for troops to not have the tank be blocking LoS, making both the passengers and transport far more difficult and dangerous to use.

There's an argument for 5E that they went too far in some regards, though I don't think that's anything unique to the Chimera (and I'd argue the Rhino is by far the greatest offender of that edition), but in 5E a Chimera could get your guardsmen across the field in the face of some resistance, or could be fielded in sufficient numbers to ensure something made it, and I just never found such to be the case in 4E, and there's a reason Chimeras never showed up in what passed for competitive IG lists at the time.

The issue with 4E isn't unique to the Chimera either. The core game rules in 3E and 4E, as well as 6E and 7E, really had this awkward gap between Skimmers and tracked/walker vehicles. It was expressed differently (SMF downgrading Pens to Glances and then wargear further mitigating damage results vs the later Jink mechanic), but that gap has been very stark and present throughout a lot of 40k history. GW keeps trying to express defense through mobility as being difficult to hurt, and it's never quite worked right.

Anyway, just my remembrance on that slice of 4E, I'm obviously fairly opinionated on the Chimera 5E certainly also had its warts, wound allocation was really absurd and gimmicky, the changeover from VP's to KP's, etc, and with Tau and Eldar having been so tightly written to those 3E/4E vehicle mechanics, those armies certainly ran into issues during 5E in turn just as IG had issues in 4E.


I took a break from reading for work, thinking something light, but this was the most interesting and informative discussion I have seen all day.

I liked that the earlier editions were generally smaller. Vehicles were special models that required expensive counters (lascannons were pricey, iirc, often on vehicles which were similarly fragile and expensive) and it wasn't always easy to get at them. There was risk involved, at least it felt that way, especially with smaller games.

Personally, I would prefer 2nd e.g. facings, templates, model-level granularity, remove nearest model, with some of 4th e.g. missions, leadership tests to shoot at more distant units, and limit game sizes to maybe today's 1250 or 1500pts on a 6x4 board.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 10:15:04


Post by: Blackie


 Da Boss wrote:
My memories of the editions are tied really strongly to how Orks played in them. So for most of 3e and 4e I was frustrated with my slightly janky codex with lots of options there were no models for, or really old models for.


Yes, I had the same feeling. During 3rd playing orks the way they were supposed to be played at competitive levels was flat out impossible due to lack of models/wargear and the fact that you had to buy tons of blisters just for the basic stuff: gretchins, their runtherd, nobz and special weapons for the boyz squads, tankbustas, burnaboyz etc... In fact just to play an average optimized list I had to buy something like 30 blisters(3-6 killa kanz, 5ish nobz with the desired loadout, 8+ blisters of gretchins, runtherd, warboss, 8+ blisters of special weapons guys, etc...), on top on regular plastic boxes, which was unreasonably expensive and to scratch build a battle wagon, in an era of no internet at home (so no tutorials, no 2nd hand market, no online shops for plasticard and such, etc...).

I've played 3rd edition much recently, during 7th era, and with the appropriate collection of models orks were extremely fun to play in that edition. 5th was definitely much easier to master due to the massive release of new models and at that time optimized lists could have been played 100% out of the boxes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 12:32:31


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agree to disagree.

Personally, the weakness of transports forces the infantry and mech to work together (like real life) rather than the Chimeras being bunkers and the infantry never needing to disembark until they died.
Recalling 4E, aside from phyically body blocking to keep away charges there's not much they can do to provide actual support (automatic weapons don't pin anything in 40k, lasguns certainly didn't hurt much, especially not at 6ppm and without FRFSRF, their bodies aren't providing a cover save, etc), there just isn't a whole lot of mechanics the game (particularly 4E) provides for that, and if anything they'd just provide an assault springboard to an opponent to consolidate through, and much of the time the Chimera was the most expensive, more valuable asset anyway which made things even more awkward.

There's a couple of things wrong here - well, one big thing and then an unwillingness to consider how a Chimera can be used. Strength 6 and below are defensive weapons in 4th, meaning it can move and shoot either twin HF or a Multi-Laser and a heavy bolter and STILL shoot a Hunter-Killer too.

So I use them like Soviet BMPs - a very tough heavy weapon/atgm team within the squad that can move up with advancing infantry and still put out a good amount of fire (6 shots is no joke, nor is 2 flamer templates).

They can body block, yes, but they also can tank shock, which can restore mobility to an otherwise deadlocked situation. If I run into a foe like Orks who can't easily/reliably pen the vehicle with a unit, I can close, do some damage, then hop in the Chimera and tank shock through. This means the Ork player needs to allocate dedicated AT assets to killing the Chimera because Close Combat only hits the facing the unit was in when it charged.

Additionally, one does not consolidate after wiping out non-WS vehicles.
 Vaktathi wrote:

The 4th Armored Company list had doctrines, whilst Armored Battlegroup did not, meaning you could make your dudes Your Dudes as well as giving the vehicles additional capabilities (e.g. tank shock hurts the enemy / improved side armor / ace gunners).
Eh, I kinda feel for the doubling or trebling in vehicle count and unit options and massive adjustment in costs, particularly given how situational and expensive those upgrades were, the later lists more than compensated, though I guess that's subjective.

I prefer a game to be about My Dudes, and raw vehicle count means nothing when an Armored Company in lore has 10 tanks, no more, no less. I could bring more support in a cheaper list, but the tanks are more "mine" in an Armored Company list (rather than just generic Russes that could be anyone's). You could convert your tanks to match the doctrines too (side skirt armor, plasma sponsons on the basic Russ, etc).
 Vaktathi wrote:

Lastly, vehicles feel like they use their armor for durability rather than the Damage Chart. For me, in 5th, a Chimera felt durable because it was hard to damage it effectively on the chart, whilst the armor looked like swiss cheese (because as you yourself note, it was bad).

You had absurd situations where you would get like 11 penetrating hits on a Chimera and shake it 7 times, blow off two guns, and stun it three times. That was much MUCH less lily in fourth.
Sure that could happen, but you'd be literally orders of magnitude more likely to explode it on the first shot instead even in 5E. That said, even with the 5E damage scheme, you were more likely to kill a 5E Chimera with a Lascannon in one shot than you were a 4E Devilfish unless the 5E Chimera was in cover.

Methinks you are too bitter about skimmers.

I have a regular Tau opponent and he isn't that hard to deal with. A skimmer had to move more than 6" to get the "only-can-glance" bonus, and this meant:
1) no passengers disembarking
2) no guns firing (unless it is also Fast)

The Devilfish could get a thing that made it count as Fast but that made it so much more expensive than a Chimera that it isn't funny (something like 130 points to the Chimera's appx 100 when kitted) - at least if you bought it any useful guns to warrant firing at all. The base Pulse Carbine Drones and Burst Cannon are worse than any of the Chimera weapon loadouts.

The real problem was Eldar skimmers, who were fast by default and had Holofields.
 Vaktathi wrote:


This, in turn, increases the value of armor protection. When the durability of vehicles comes from a lenient damage chart, all vehicles are pretty much as durable as any other (a stun is a stun whether it happens 3 times because your armor is hard to penetrate or 6 times because it is easy).

Also, damage results not punishing passengers meant that Mechanized Infantry ended up being more like Mechanized (sometimes infantry but only if a transport dies) units. Imperial Guard squads became 60 point upgrades to Chimeras, rather than actually having to dismount and participate on their own, in conjunction with their vehicle.

This makes it feel more realistic to me.
Ultimately I guess to me, regardless of realism, it comes down to the fact that a Chimera actually functioned as a light tank and transport in 5E, and just...didn't in 4E

~90-100pts (or more depending on upgrades) for a heavy bolter and a multilaser wasn't particularly cost effective for a light tank at BS3 even back then.

An AV10 box with one AV12 facing that doesn't get SMF+VectoredEngines or SMF+Decoy Launchers was just mechanistically a transport that only worked if nobody shot at it, they had more in common with a Trukk in terms of resiliency than a Wave Serpent or Devilfish, but were far closer to the cost of the latter, with the mobility of none of the above and in some cases substantially less firepower to boot as well. Oh, and unlike the Wave Serpent or Devilfish, the disembarking Chimera passengers can't sit and hide behind their transport and shoot through it without penalty, the Chimera has to swing its booty around and point its single good armor facing away from the enemy in order for troops to not have the tank be blocking LoS, making both the passengers and transport far more difficult and dangerous to use.

There's an argument for 5E that they went too far in some regards, though I don't think that's anything unique to the Chimera (and I'd argue the Rhino is by far the greatest offender of that edition), but in 5E a Chimera could get your guardsmen across the field in the face of some resistance, or could be fielded in sufficient numbers to ensure something made it, and I just never found such to be the case in 4E, and there's a reason Chimeras never showed up in what passed for competitive IG lists at the time.

The issue with 4E isn't unique to the Chimera either. The core game rules in 3E and 4E, as well as 6E and 7E, really had this awkward gap between Skimmers and tracked/walker vehicles. It was expressed differently (SMF downgrading Pens to Glances and then wargear further mitigating damage results vs the later Jink mechanic), but that gap has been very stark and present throughout a lot of 40k history. GW keeps trying to express defense through mobility as being difficult to hurt, and it's never quite worked right.

Anyway, just my remembrance on that slice of 4E, I'm obviously fairly opinionated on the Chimera 5E certainly also had its warts, wound allocation was really absurd and gimmicky, the changeover from VP's to KP's, etc, and with Tau and Eldar having been so tightly written to those 3E/4E vehicle mechanics, those armies certainly ran into issues during 5E in turn just as IG had issues in 4E.


I mean, I am playing the Chimera, 10 of them, right now, in 4th, against a variety of opponents (including Tau) and having a blast.
If we moved up to 5th, I would have less of a blast, because I wouldn't be playing Steel Legion Mechanized Infantry, I would be playing Steel Legion Never Comes Out Of Mobile Bunkers. Whatever your memories are, I'm playing it NOW and it works way better in 4th than (especially) 9th.

I'm not playing competitively, but it isn't like we aren't trying to win.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 18:02:46


Post by: Jayden63


I agree that the biggest offenders for the skimmers moving fast was eldar. The Tau decoy launchers just allowed for reroll on immobilized results only. A far cry different than the holofields which were roll two dice for damage and pick the lowest.

We changed to to act like the dead venerable ability. You can get a reroll. However there is also the added bit where if a skimmer moves over 12" and is immobilized, it is instead destroyed. We have found this balance for skimmers to be very acceptable, and even the eldar player doesn't object as he realized just how bad it was back then.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 19:49:14


Post by: General Distress


1st and 2nd. For sure.

Mind you, it's not for the ruleset. Temporal Distort was a game-breaking loophole, but there are TONS of cool weapons, doo-dads, and various fascinating stuff that only show up in 40k RPG's, if you've read the 1st edition.

Even if you never plan on playing it, every rabid 40k fan should own a copy of 1st edition at least for bathroom reading.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 21:24:18


Post by: Vaktathi


Sorry this got way longer than I intended it to be, apologies for formatting

jeff white wrote:

I took a break from reading for work, thinking something light, but this was the most interesting and informative discussion I have seen all day.

I liked that the earlier editions were generally smaller. Vehicles were special models that required expensive counters (lascannons were pricey, iirc, often on vehicles which were similarly fragile and expensive) and it wasn't always easy to get at them. There was risk involved, at least it felt that way, especially with smaller games.

Personally, I would prefer 2nd e.g. facings, templates, model-level granularity, remove nearest model, with some of 4th e.g. missions, leadership tests to shoot at more distant units, and limit game sizes to maybe today's 1250 or 1500pts on a 6x4 board.
GW never quite nailed vehicles, they were always wonky, from 2E's templates to the never-quite-working-right tables of 3E-5E and the awful "you have both a damage table *and* wounds but no save!" system of 6E/7E. In the modern game they at least cut out the balance issues of trying to treat vehicles as something different from monsters and large creatures, but it does feel less realistic and detailed.

In older editions it worked a lot better as noted with fewer hulls on the field, when having a Dreadnought and a couple transports and maybe a Predator would have been a lot of vehicles, that tactical detail worked a lot better. When the game can have two dozen hulls on a field and its scope creeps to try and encompass Titans in the same ruleset that's trying to make a single Grot's pistol a relevant weapon, detail has to give for functionality's sake as GW creeps the scope of the game ever upward.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
There's a couple of things wrong here - well, one big thing and then an unwillingness to consider how a Chimera can be used. Strength 6 and below are defensive weapons in 4th, meaning it can move and shoot either twin HF or a Multi-Laser and a heavy bolter and STILL shoot a Hunter-Killer too.
Aye they could move and shoot with both weapons, which was probably the one highlight of the 4E ruleset I really did like (especially relative to 5E) , but that's a 100pt AV12/10/10 tank without any upgrades and a single-one use BS3 S8 shot, that's a really anemic firepower output for that level of investment. They also can't split fire, so whatever they're shooting that HK at, everything else has to shoot at too, and they're usually not complementary weapons.

A Devilfish can match that firepower (albeit without as much range) with greater mobility, side AV11, Multitracker Fast shooting, side access hatches, SMF+Decoy Launchers, Skimmer Movement to hop over intervening terrain, and still have a Tau equivalent HK missile, for a 105pts. Another 5pts more with a Targeting Array makes it BS4 to boot.

Even a relatively barebones Wave Serpent at 110pts with no upgrades except replaceing the Shuricats with a Shuricannon (to give it 6 S6 shots) at is getting side AV12, Fast Movement, SMF defensive bonus, the ability to hop over terrain, half its shots are Twin Linked, and anything hitting its front/sides is limited to S8 and 1D6 armor pen (no melta bonus, Railguns don't get to use their S10, etc). That's a *lot* for 10pts over a Chimera.

Relative to either of these transports at the same price point, the Chimera leaves a *lot* wanting, and brings nothing to the table these don't except the ability for the occupants to shoot out of it at increased risk, though the Skimmer occupants can disembark in safety behind their transport and shoot through it without penalty.

So I use them like Soviet BMPs - a very tough heavy weapon/atgm team within the squad that can move up with advancing infantry and still put out a good amount of fire (6 shots is no joke, nor is 2 flamer templates).
I totally feel ya there, that's how I'd often attempt to use mine. Unfortunately 6 shots at BS3 with little AP at BS3 isn't a stellar amount of firepower unfortunately in and of itself. A single such Chimera is killing on average, two guardsmen, or 3/4ths of a Space Marine with a ML/HB combo. It's not nothing, it's more than the squad of embarked guardsmen are typically doing, but for what the Chimera costs it's not a lot of firepower output in and of itself.

With regards to heavy flamers, I was able to make good use of them in 5E, but in 4E a 100pt Heavy Flamer that had trouble crossing a field just didn't work well for me. I also usually ran a Hellhound for that particular need, though they weren't great in 4E either (still having to roll to hit)

They can body block, yes, but they also can tank shock, which can restore mobility to an otherwise deadlocked situation. If I run into a foe like Orks who can't easily/reliably pen the vehicle with a unit, I can close, do some damage, then hop in the Chimera and tank shock through. This means the Ork player needs to allocate dedicated AT assets to killing the Chimera because Close Combat only hits the facing the unit was in when it charged.
Sure but that's nothing about that is unique to 4E, and it probably works better in 5E all told. Ulitmately the infantry however don't have much in the way of mechanism to support the armor, and aside from body blocking and forcing paths, the primary support the Chimera provides is shelter, and for 100pts relative to other transports of the same cost, it's really not good at that.

Additionally, one does not consolidate after wiping out non-WS vehicles.
Aye, but unembarked infantry attempting to provide some sort of screening or support can be.


I prefer a game to be about My Dudes, and raw vehicle count means nothing when an Armored Company in lore has 10 tanks, no more, no less.
I was referring more to the breadth and type of vehicles, you probably weren't bringing more than 10 Russ tanks in either list, but the access to types and upgrades in the latter list was far more expansive.

I could bring more support in a cheaper list, but the tanks are more "mine" in an Armored Company list (rather than just generic Russes that could be anyone's). You could convert your tanks to match the doctrines too (side skirt armor, plasma sponsons on the basic Russ, etc).
The plasma sponsons on the basic Russ became a universal option with 5E, and I much prefer having the Russ tanks just naturally upgraded to side armor 13 in 5E than having to buy it as an upgrade. The 5E FW AB list was DKoK Specific, so it was kinda niche, but the 6E AB list replicated the function of many of the remaining things into either Tank Orders or other upgrades that fill similar roles (e.g. Artificer Hull for +1HP in 6E vs Forge Crafted for a table reroll in 4E)



I have a regular Tau opponent and he isn't that hard to deal with. A skimmer had to move more than 6" to get the "only-can-glance" bonus, and this meant:
1) no passengers disembarking
2) no guns firing (unless it is also Fast)
The restriction on Disembarking was for moving over 12", not 6" in 4E so it didn't impact transport typically. Likewise, all Skimmers were Fast, or had wargear to make them functionally so (e.g. Multitrackers) with the sole exception of the Monolith as far as I can recall.

The Devilfish could get a thing that made it count as Fast but that made it so much more expensive than a Chimera that it isn't funny (something like 130 points to the Chimera's appx 100 when kitted) - at least if you bought it any useful guns to warrant firing at all. The base Pulse Carbine Drones and Burst Cannon are worse than any of the Chimera weapon loadouts.
Alas it was a mere 10pt upgrade, and in 4E the Devilfish starts at only 10pts more than a Chimera, and isn't needing to pay for its guns or drones like the Chimera does. A Wave Serpent likewise is only 10pts more than a Chimera after minimum kit

You could *make* a Devilfish or Wave Serpent that expensive, certainly, but they don't need to be, and when they are that expensive, they're solid gunboats/medium tanks.

You can also make a Chimera that expensive. 70pts base, heavy bolter and multilaser for 90, track guards for 10 to treat Immobilized as Stunned on a 4+, 3pts for Smoke to downgrade Pens to Glances in exchanges for not shooting, Pintle Heavy Stubber for 10, rough terrain mod for 5 to bulldoze through terrain, extra armor to keep moving when stunned, 1pt for Searchlight, and 10pts for a HK missile sets us 1pt shy of 130.

A 130pt Devilfish starting at 80pts could have Smart Missile Systems to hit out of LoS targets with 4 S5 shots to replace its Drones for 20, Multitracker to shoot as Fast for 10, Targeting Array for BS4 for 5, Decoy Launchers to reroll immobilized (dead with SMF) results for 5 (half the price and infinitely more value than track guards), and a Seeker Missile.

The Chimera can hit out at a bit further static distance, but in every other respect the Devilfish is markedly superior.

The real problem was Eldar skimmers, who were fast by default and had Holofields.
They absolutely were by far the bigger offenders, particularly in terms of transport resiliency between Wave Serpent Energy Fields and Falcons with Holofields, but the gap between skimmers and non skimmers in general was really pronounced. A Fire Prism or Hammerhead are simply markedly superior units in every way to a Russ or Predator in that edition for example.



I mean, I am playing the Chimera, 10 of them, right now, in 4th, against a variety of opponents (including Tau) and having a blast.
If we moved up to 5th, I would have less of a blast, because I wouldn't be playing Steel Legion Mechanized Infantry, I would be playing Steel Legion Never Comes Out Of Mobile Bunkers. Whatever your memories are, I'm playing it NOW and it works way better in 4th than (especially) 9th.

I'm not playing competitively, but it isn't like we aren't trying to win.
Great! I not trying to take away from your fun at all and I hope it's awesome, genuinely so.

That said, from my experiences, I have difficulty seeing how 1000pts of Chimeras, works at all in that edition as anything other than a punching bag army. Just adding 3 barebones platoons and a barebones HQ command squad to fill those, that's 1520pts before any infantry/command/wargear upgrades, or any support units like Russ tanks. What sort of list do you run? I built my mechanized IG in 4th as a labor of love and passion for the concept, running 7 Chimeras, a Hellhound, and a trio of Russ tanks with sixty Stormtroopers with a near nekkid command squad, but never had much success with it in even intentionally causal settings, and rolled out the Chaos Marines for events/tournaments. With S10 Broadsides around, SMF Hammerheads, and Move-Shoot-Move Crisis Suits with 36" S7 missiles, I found Tau to be an insurmountable opponent with such an IG list in 4E, my own Tau army (that I just gave away recently because after 4E I didn't want to rebuild it using giant walkers instead of skimmer tanks and it sat in a box for years ) just crushed that IG list every time.


Jayden63 wrote:I agree that the biggest offenders for the skimmers moving fast was eldar. The Tau decoy launchers just allowed for reroll on immobilized results only. A far cry different than the holofields which were roll two dice for damage and pick the lowest.
Holofields (particularly with Vectored Engines) were by far the worst offender, however the Decoy Launchers were no joke for their trivial 5pt price that you'd auto-take on literally every vehicle every time. Because you could only Glance skimmers, they could only be killed on a 6 or a 5 immobilized result. Rerolling that 5 effectively increased the average number of shots needed to achieve a kill result by 50%. That's some powerful mojo. On top of that for 5pts they could take Disruption Pods that would effectively remove their turn 1 or stationary weakness, again forcing them to only be glanced if shot at from over 12" away.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 21:38:45


Post by: Insectum7


I genuinely can't remember ever really having issues when dealing with Devilfish though, for some reason. Maybe because they were still easy to suppress with Shaken/Stunned while Eldar would have Spirit Stones to help avoid the same suppression. Foggy memory regarding that.

@Unit, didn't Secondary weapons cut off at S5 (not 6)? I recall it being odd that Heavy Bolters were Secondary weapons while Shuriken Cannons were not.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 21:48:24


Post by: waefre_1


 Insectum7 wrote:

@Unit, didn't Secondary weapons cut off at S5 (not 6)? I recall it being odd that Heavy Bolters were Secondary weapons while Shuriken Cannons were not.

I actually checked a little earlier because I thought the same thing and happen to have both BRBs handy - in the 4e BRB, Defensive Weapons are "S6 and lower" (and weapons with multiple profiles count as Defensive or not depending on which profile they use, strangely - the example given was that a Missile Launcher firing frag would be Defensive but firing krak would not). That changed to "S4 or lower" in the 5e BRB.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 22:03:18


Post by: Vaktathi


 Insectum7 wrote:
I genuinely can't remember ever really having issues when dealing with Devilfish though, for some reason. Maybe because they were still easy to suppress with Shaken/Stunned while Eldar would have Spirit Stones to help avoid the same suppression. Foggy memory regarding that.

@Unit, didn't Secondary weapons cut off at S5 (not 6)? I recall it being odd that Heavy Bolters were Secondary weapons while Shuriken Cannons were not.
Regarding Devilfish, it's not so much that they, in and of themselves, were huge issues, they're just a good illustrator of how how Skimmers tended to have a plethora of (often cheap) wargear that removed or mitigated their downsides while enjoying substantial benefits over tracked/legged vehicles, and particularly illustrating just how bad the Chimera was in 4E.

Defensive weapons cutoff was definitely 6 in 4E, HB's and Shuricannons were both secondary weapons.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 23:21:40


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Disruption Pods count as obscured on a 4+, same as being behind terrain (and it doesn't stack).

My Tau opponent takes them all the time, and also ends up being obscured by terrain from my shooting so often that he thinks they are a waste of points.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 23:37:56


Post by: Insectum7


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I genuinely can't remember ever really having issues when dealing with Devilfish though, for some reason. Maybe because they were still easy to suppress with Shaken/Stunned while Eldar would have Spirit Stones to help avoid the same suppression. Foggy memory regarding that.

@Unit, didn't Secondary weapons cut off at S5 (not 6)? I recall it being odd that Heavy Bolters were Secondary weapons while Shuriken Cannons were not.
Regarding Devilfish, it's not so much that they, in and of themselves, were huge issues, they're just a good illustrator of how how Skimmers tended to have a plethora of (often cheap) wargear that removed or mitigated their downsides while enjoying substantial benefits over tracked/legged vehicles, and particularly illustrating just how bad the Chimera was in 4E.

Gotcha. Yes I would agree that 4e transport rules might have been too punishing. But I don't think I had huge issues with skimmers outside of the Eldar ones. Even then I felt it was best handled by killing everything else though.


Defensive weapons cutoff was definitely 6 in 4E, HB's and Shuricannons were both secondary weapons.
Huh, cool. I wonder why I have such a strong memory for the other case.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/29 23:52:10


Post by: Vaktathi


The Disruption pods were a funny one. In 4th they were situational, there for turn 1 damage mitigation (as you could be pen'd if you hadn't moved yet) or if you'd gotten stunned, but otherwise SMF just did the same thing. Decoy Launchers was what you lived and died by to reroll that deadly immobilized result.

Then in 5E with the death of the old SMF mechanic and change to damage table, Decoy Launchers lost the bulk of their utility, and suddenly every Tau vehicle had Disruption Pods and a 5pt 4+ cover save against anything further than 12" away, almost single-handedly keeping that army functional in 5E

 Insectum7 wrote:

Huh, cool. I wonder why I have such a strong memory for the other case.
You're not the only one, I know it was S6 but I keep recalling something about S5 somewhere, maybe from one of the leaked playtest editions.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 01:21:10


Post by: Jayden63


 Vaktathi wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I genuinely can't remember ever really having issues when dealing with Devilfish though, for some reason. Maybe because they were still easy to suppress with Shaken/Stunned while Eldar would have Spirit Stones to help avoid the same suppression. Foggy memory regarding that.

@Unit, didn't Secondary weapons cut off at S5 (not 6)? I recall it being odd that Heavy Bolters were Secondary weapons while Shuriken Cannons were not.
Regarding Devilfish, it's not so much that they, in and of themselves, were huge issues, they're just a good illustrator of how how Skimmers tended to have a plethora of (often cheap) wargear that removed or mitigated their downsides while enjoying substantial benefits over tracked/legged vehicles, and particularly illustrating just how bad the Chimera was in 4E.

Defensive weapons cutoff was definitely 6 in 4E, HB's and Shuricannons were both secondary weapons.


Going off of a 50 point Rhino, I've always felt that most other base transports were overpriced. The Chimera with its base load out shouldn't be more than 65 points (if not just 60). The Devilfish 65-70 (not 80), heck that even includes the Wave serpent. A basic transport shouldn't cost 100+ points ever, even when fully upgraded.

Secondary weapons should have been at S5, in all additions, some races didn't even have a S4 option for a vehicle weapon (Tau and Orks come to mind)


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 07:28:16


Post by: aphyon


I am with Vaktathi on this one. other than the wonky wound allocation system. the second most thing i see complaints about is the "parking lot" from the 5th ed detractors.

The reality was that in 4th unless you were a skimmer you were better off walking behind the transport than being in it.

The big rub was the eldar and to a lesser extent tau skimmer. space marine skimmers were limited to land speeders that died to everything being only AV 10 and no option for extra armor unless you wanted to drop the points to give them the POTMS upgrade.

Eldar skimmers almost never died and the base transports were also capable main battle tanks. devil fish were fine anti-infantry platforms and continued to be so in 5th

The changes to 5th made vehicles worth taking (But the assault rules were more tactically challenging in 4th which is why our group still uses them). now that doesn't make the infantry 40k players happy but vehicles became what they were supposed to be. it was a balancing act. AT weapons became more available as a result across all armies. In the hundreds of games i got in 5th ed ( i played on average 3 every week for 4 years) dealing with vehicles has never been a problem and still isn't now that we have gone back to playing 5th with a few rules fixes.

We just did a 5th ed game last weekend and i lost both my land raiders to A. railguns and B. haywire grenades. it was a game where both sides ran plenty of vehicles (i had 8 counting the lucius drop pods, but they don't actually do anything after they land so i don't really count them.) and he had 4. The Tau won that game quite handily.

The defensive weapons strength was 6 in 3rd and it dropped to 5 in 4th and to 4 in 5th IIRC. our group went back to 5 because it made sense as S5 weapons are primarily defensive anti-infantry mounts-burst cannons, heavy bolters etc...


One side note since he mentioned it, i recommend you go back and look at the original rules for warhounds and other "titan" class vehicle before apocalypse ever got released.

FW made them over costed, centerpiece models that were understandably harder to kill but in reality, didn't do that much damage because they were made with normal 2K scale games in mind. my warhound with a plasma blast gun/vulkan mega bolter clocks in at a 5th ed astounding points cost of 810, has a single 5" template weapon and a slightly longer range assault cannon with 10 shots instead of 4. Both weapons also had a 12" minimum range they could not fire within. they also were only BS4 not 5.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 08:51:20


Post by: Boringstuff


I started in 5th, but I honestly thought 6th improved things. I played very little 7th and it seemed to add a bit too many extra things. 8th is just a trainwreck with the stat changes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 10:35:47


Post by: aphyon


Well, you are a rare exception. 6th is nearly universally despised. the numbers bear it out. it nearly killed the game and got quickly replaced in just over 1 year (14 months). i know a few people who started with 6th and felt a big improvement in 7th until they started spamming formations.

8th and by extension 9th are a completely different game. it may say 40K on the box but it feels nothing like 40K of the previous 5 editions that had many identical core mechanics.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 11:26:52


Post by: Spoletta


The game changed completely from 3-7 to 8-9.

It was a design change in what they intended to represent on the field.

Until 7th, the game was trying to be a WW2 in space. Armor facings, transports, suppression, vehicle damage charts, FOC... all things that would look good in a game like Flames of War.

If you played imperium factions, and especially IG, then you are guaranteed to prefer these older edition to the newer ones. Those rules were made with human warfare in mind.

The problem of those editions was that they worked very badly once applied to something as vast as 40K. Everything non-human or at least humanish felt very tacked on. It was incapable of properly representing stuff like demons and bugs, because it tried to cage them into human war mechanics.

In fact one of the common complaints of those editions is that all factions felt a bit samey in the way you faced them. This is a skimmer, that is an heavy vehicle and this is an AT weapon... factions didn't really have a strong flavor.

8th and 9th edition have a lot less realistic feel. They don't even try to look like a standard wargame. They use rules which are as generic as possible. Like the fact that they do not make any difference between vehicles and monstrous creatures.
This makes the edition a lot more flavorful but pays with a lot more complexity on codex level. The game was made generic, so it is very bland without the additional seasoning given by the specific factions and units.
In these editions, the factions truly play with different rules and feel very different on the field. Playing against death guard or against thousand sons is a completely different experience. Fighting Admech or Necrons couldn't be more different. This is what these modern editions contributed to the game.
If you care strongly for the flavor of your army and want the peculiarities of your faction to feel very special and make the game turn around them, then you are probably going to like the modern editions.

Different designs for different tastes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 12:26:05


Post by: aphyon


If you care strongly for the flavor of your army and want the peculiarities of your faction to feel very special and make the game turn around them, then you are probably going to like the modern editions.



Or not, in fact i think 9th is only second worse than 6th, if i want what you describe i am grabbing the 3.5 chaos codex or the 3rd ed index astartes books for things like white scars or pretty much any codex made for 3rd or 4th edition with only a few exceptions. the rules that make them different are built into the faction and do not require a resource mechanic that suddenly makes my force stop being able to operate like it should because i ran out of enough command points to play a stratagem that used to be a trait/ability the faction naturally had.


I think a fellow dakka poster once said it best. the older version of the game made it feel like these were your dudes, and they were fighting in the way they would fight if they are in that scenario/setting, not necessarily the best way they should fight.

A good example is our khorne player. he uses the 3.5 chaos dex in our 5th ed games-berserkers are holding the objective, the smart thing is to hold it and move it away from the enemy, what would berserkers actually do while holding the magic McGuffin if they see and enemy they can assault? the fluff says go hit them with my pointy stick, and when they blood rage that is exactly what they try to do. i do not need a stratagem to make them do it or be fearless or use chain axes etc... that is all built into their specific rules.

So yes as i have said before 8th/9th edition is not 40K, it is a different game with the 40K name with many of the same characters and troupes and you can use your minis to play either. in fact, we found that using 8ths simple rule set makes a good template for playing 10K+ games of epic 40K. it is to abstract to make a normal scale 2k game interesting but it is enough to make putting down half a chapter of marines on the table with all their support elements play fast and interesting at such a large scale (and a fraction of the cost).


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 13:56:08


Post by: Spoletta


That's why I said "Likely to" and not "Sure to"

In 9th you get to have your own trait, super trait, powers, relics, wlt and ways to score points (stratagems are only a minimal part of faction flavor), so the amount of rules dedicated to adding flavor to your faction and making it play differently from other factions is simply without precedents. And yet since it is a matter of flavor, you can't rule out that someone will prefer the previous one


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 19:26:44


Post by: Boringstuff


 aphyon wrote:
Well, you are a rare exception. 6th is nearly universally despised. the numbers bear it out. it nearly killed the game and got quickly replaced in just over 1 year (14 months). i know a few people who started with 6th and felt a big improvement in 7th until they started spamming formations.

8th and by extension 9th are a completely different game. it may say 40K on the box but it feels nothing like 40K of the previous 5 editions that had many identical core mechanics.


I thought 6th added flavour with the new unit types and I thought flyers were cool at the time. Now they just seem tacked on...

I forgot 9th was even a thing, not been paying attention much the last few years. Only "back" now in a modelling sense anyway.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/11/30 22:40:06


Post by: ScooterinAB


I'm partial to 2nd edition, and I'll die on that hill. No release has recaptured for me how 2nd edition played. It actually felt like a tactical game. Plus you didn't need special rules for every single thing on the table.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 01:05:25


Post by: Insectum7


ScooterinAB wrote:
I'm partial to 2nd edition, and I'll die on that hill. No release has recaptured for me how 2nd edition played. It actually felt like a tactical game. Plus you didn't need special rules for every single thing on the table.
Haha no, but your wargear might come it's own reference chart, lol. Blind effects, setting on fire, plasma expansion, snotlings that appear inside the Terminator suit, bionic legs that kick people out of combat (and into my overwatch fire ). Hell each vehicle had its own set of tables to roll on for damage.

Lots of texture in that game!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 06:29:13


Post by: aphyon


I have the 2nd ed guard codex, the leman russ has 2 pages of rules.





Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 08:33:39


Post by: Da Boss


I really like 2e, but mostly as something I remember discovering, rather than something I really want to try and teach someone how to play!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 09:46:39


Post by: Luke82


2nd Ed’s complexity has been greatly exaggerated over the years… personally I found it much easier to get to grips with than all the strategems / command points etc of today’s games. Just make sure you have plenty of scatter dice on hand as nearly every weapons you fire will scatter to some extent ha ha


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 22:04:18


Post by: Insectum7


Luke82 wrote:
2nd Ed’s complexity has been greatly exaggerated over the years… personally I found it much easier to get to grips with than all the strategems / command points etc of today’s games.
I think that's because much of the complexity of 2nd came from either weapon effects (damage charts or blast tables), or fairly intuitive increases of detail (firing out or doors and hatches of vehicles, throwing grenades).

Stratagems are this extra layer of gamey abstract decisions with tremendous importance to a game's outcome. You HAVE to be considering them all the time, but they're pretty inorganic, imo.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/01 22:31:28


Post by: Hellebore


The necromunda 2nd ed rules were IMO a pretty good attempt at simplifying 2nd ed while still evoking the feeling.

However they kept the 2nd ed melee rules (which makes sense for a skirmish game), which were too complex for fast play.

IMO you can take 2nd ed, swap in the 3rd ed melee mechanics of WS comparison and use Initiative as an opposed roll against BS in the same way (rather than a static value based on the number) and you've got a pretty simple and effective game.

So in summary:

2nd +

BS vs I
WS vs I

(using the 3rd ed WS table - or you could use the current SvsT table for hit rolls instead if you want 2+ and 6+)

Modifiers are always to BS or WS, no to hit rolls before comparing.

damage simplified to 1, d3 or d6/2d6

remove excess weapon effects (setting on fire, permanent plasma blasts etc)

And the game isn't too bad, psychic powers not withstanding








Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/02 11:26:28


Post by: Pacific


For me, it's going back a bit now but 4th edition was the last version that felt like a coherent, controlled war game.

I know it definitely had its issues (as has been said, the vehicle and transport rules were poor) but it felt like it had a lot less broken special rules, or imbalanced lists. I seemed to have a lot more games that went down to the wire and neither side particular upset by crappy rules or a poor codex. Of course that might be entirely anecdotal

By the time 6th edition had arrived, and my infantry were just being carpet-bombed by what looked like Tomix toys, I'll be honest the game had started to leave me

 Insectum7 wrote:
ScooterinAB wrote:
I'm partial to 2nd edition, and I'll die on that hill. No release has recaptured for me how 2nd edition played. It actually felt like a tactical game. Plus you didn't need special rules for every single thing on the table.
Haha no, but your wargear might come it's own reference chart, lol. Blind effects, setting on fire, plasma expansion, snotlings that appear inside the Terminator suit, bionic legs that kick people out of combat (and into my overwatch fire ). Hell each vehicle had its own set of tables to roll on for damage.

Lots of texture in that game!


There was definitely a lot more detail, and everyone hated rolling to see what happened to smoke grenade templates at the end of each turn. But it was mitigated by the fact you had a lot less miniatures on the table. You could go down to that level of granular detail.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/02 21:30:28


Post by: Insectum7


 Pacific wrote:

By the time 6th edition had arrived, and my infantry were just being carpet-bombed by what looked like Tomix toys, I'll be honest the game had started to leave me
That description is gold. Lol.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/02 21:35:17


Post by: Frazzled


The_Real_Chris wrote:
2nd ed with the GT limits to characters and psychic powers.

2nd ed. Terribly unbalanced hero hammer...it was great!

Vortex attacks. Vortex bombs. Firing from off the board. Imperial Guard with assault gun landspeeders. So much cheese.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/02 21:37:58


Post by: Eldarain


During 4th-5th our local group played 2nd with a few restrictions.

No Wargear cards and terrain density closer to Cities of Death.

Really enjoyed that.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 07:17:22


Post by: aphyon


Kind of how we are currently using a combination of kill teams/combat patrol from the 4th ed BRB for our kill team games now.

Good stuff all around.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 08:50:11


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Eldarain wrote:
No Wargear cards...
Aww... but they're fun!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 09:20:34


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


2nd Ed remains the most fun I’ve ever had in 40K. And yes much of that will stem from the time it was. I was a kid. Thankfully not spotty, but a little Herbert all the same,

Managed to play one game where it was my Dark Angels Company (plus around half the Deathwing) against all comers. That game was messy, but bloody good fun.

Vehicles didn’t just explode, you could blow turrets off them, only to land and squish someone. Chief Librarians on Combat Drugs and Iron Arm absolutely wrecking everything and everyone. Witnessing an Avatar run away from an Inquisitor’s Psycannon (which auto wounded Daemons and denied them a save).

So much fun and nonsense.

Probably little use for a tournament game I’ll grant you. But still bloody good fun!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 11:16:29


Post by: Pacific


It was for sure!

And I think it probably benefited from the time it was about, you didn't have people doing mathhammer army lists on the internet and trying to break it. Instead you were encouraged to mess about with the army lists and try different stuff, and your mates threw something at you if you did anything too cheesy.

Can you imagine if that was the current system and with people netlisting it? GW would certainly sell a lot of Wolf Guard terminators armed with assault cannons and cyclone missile launchers!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 13:36:48


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Ah, but that was rapidly FAQ’d!



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 14:14:13


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


But they still could have assault cannon/Storm Shield!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 14:26:38


Post by: Da Boss


I think that 'netlist' phenomenon really has been detrimental to a lot of traditional games, be they card games, wargames or even RPGs.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 15:23:46


Post by: Pacific


I definitely think it's an unavoidable side effect of modern social gaming (of any form - look at the video games that are ruined by hackers these days, just using simple step downloads and mods. In the old days you really had to know what you were doing for worthwhile online hacks! )

My problem is that the netlisting helps to frame what is then regarded as a desirable or 'the best' way to play; of min-maxing units, optimum unit combinations and a mentality that is based purely on tabling your opponent as efficiently as possible. And that sits awkwardly with the type of game that 40k is trying to be (or has ever professed to be); while it still can be used in tournaments, I'd argue that there are many other games that do a much better job of it, are a better measure of tactical acumen or ability to strategise, if you want to test your strengths in that area against others in a formal setting. And so it eclipses what I think are the strengths of 40k in terms of ways to play, the strong background and narrative, the characterful units and combinations etc.

But I know that is a much bigger subject for another thread!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah, but that was rapidly FAQ’d!


Haha I didn't realise that. To be fair, I only saw it used once, and it was a sight to behold! 'Shock and awe' of that many giant templates coming down on one turn didn't cover the half of it


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 15:27:43


Post by: Galas


 Da Boss wrote:
I think that 'netlist' phenomenon really has been detrimental to a lot of traditional games, be they card games, wargames or even RPGs.


A design paradigm is that, given the chance, players will optimize the fun out of any game system. Its human nature. As a developer you need to make as hard as possible to just find an optimal way to play the game that makes all others useless.

In the top end you'll always end up with the most optimized stuff but if you are capable of having a more balanced game people will be able to take less optimals choices (less say a 5% less of power) and compensate for player skills or matchup strenghts or weakness. The more unbalanced the game is, the less choices and variety in the top end.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 17:12:19


Post by: Da Boss


Yeah, that is true. I've just noticed a trend with new players across the board that the first thing they do when learning a game is go look stuff up online, and a huge amount of the advice is really binary "this is trash, take six of these" or for RPGs "this class is trash, play this and take these feats" etc.

It takes away that exploration phase of just learning the game by yourself and having fun with your self expression in the game. Pretty quickly with my RPG group I had a couple of players showing up for new campaigns with obvious net builds, or complaining that I didn't allow stuff outside the PHB because they'd read that the stuff in expansion books was more powerful or whatever.

It dominates a lot of the online discussion of warhammer too, listbuilding is the easiest thing to talk about with regard to improving your chances to win so that's what people talk about most of the time.

I find it pretty tedious, but like you say, it's just in people's nature to try and find the most efficient stuff to use. But my heart sinks when I see it.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 18:43:29


Post by: waefre_1


To be fair, when you're new to a game you won't necessarily be able to tell what's legitimately good and what's a trap option. I'd wager that most folk want to be somewhat mechanically competent (or, at least, not be dead weight for the group), and since the character/army concept is usually something you don't need to have much knowledge of the game to come up with, I don't think it's really the newbie's fault for doing a bit of research to make sure they're not accidentally gimping themself (I wouldn't expect it of every newbie, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by looking askance at it without some external reason to do so). Remember, RPGs and wargames can involve significant expenditures of time and money - finding out that you made a fundamental mistake doesn't get better if you don't find out until after you've spent dozens of hours/hundreds of dollars making it, and I think that modern gamers are generally aware that there is at least a risk of that in modern games.

Also, let's not forget, exploration can uncover hyper-optimized builds just as often as dead-ends. I'll respect a newbie who does some research to make sure their, say, 3.PF Druid is at least decent at what they want it to do, I'll respect even more a newbie who may have heard about CoDzilla and done research to make sure their 3.PF Druid doesn't accidentally overshadow the rest of the party.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/03 19:45:53


Post by: Insectum7


 Da Boss wrote:
. . . listbuilding is the easiest thing to talk about with regard to improving your chances to win so that's what people talk about most of the time.
This is very true. I'd also add Stratagems to that. Those two things are the easiest points to verbalize, so that's what conversation gravitates towards. It's really too bad, because actually using lists effectively is really what most people struggle with, imo.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah, but that was rapidly FAQ’d!
Not before some pretty epic stories manifested on the tabletop though! I remember a Terminator with Cyclone exploding upon death, causing a buddy to also get killed, and HIS misfiring cyclone fired into the back of a dreadnought causing it to explode as well!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 05:08:23


Post by: PenitentJake


I'm surprised no one who hates 40k has chimed in yet to chastise people for blaming players for what must obviously be an evil conspiracy by the worst company in the world. That usually happens within one or two post of someone criticizing netlists.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 05:40:54


Post by: Galas


I mean 40k do a crap job of balancing their games but the obsesion with optimization is a bigger problem that affects all communities.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 07:39:39


Post by: aphyon


PenitentJake wrote:
I'm surprised no one who hates 40k has chimed in yet to chastise people for blaming players for what must obviously be an evil conspiracy by the worst company in the world. That usually happens within one or two post of someone criticizing netlists.


The thing is, you're mostly talking to a group of players here who are into the old version of the game for the fun of the game and playing to the lore.

Sure the "netlists" existed in the older editions, and we all knew "that guy" who would copy tournament lists. and some of them were hard to crack, but not to the extent we have examples of now.

I have faced the double lash prince/nurgle bubble wrap list, the iron warriors heavy support army (still do), the carnifex horde list and even the dreaded eldar corsair list from FW. i do not auto-lose those games and sometimes i win.

Sometimes the comp minded players find ways to twist the rules in a way that even GW has admitted they never intended, and sometimes we even build stupid lists just to try them out to see how stupid they are...like a jakero themed list for the 5th ed GK codex....so many monkeys

Part of the problem has been with the successive editions of the game with more and more focus on "balance" in a way the older editions and players never saw the game within their regular casual player groups.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 14:44:33


Post by: jeff white


 Galas wrote:
I mean 40k do a crap job of balancing their games but the obsesion with optimization is a bigger problem that affects all communities.


Optimising for what becomes the question. Maximal X with X being open…


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 16:17:31


Post by: Mezmorki


I've said it many times, but the lack of diversity in the Matched Play mission set (Eternal War), which is what underpins competitive play, means that players can more clearly optimize for the very narrow scoring system used.

The more fundamentally diverse the objectives are and the ways in which an army needs to operate to achieve those objectives, the harder it is to optimize around meta netlists.

You can maybe optimize for a few missions, but might be weaker in other missions. Or you can take an army list that's more flexible and jack-of-all-trades like - which would result I believe in a larger pool of decent competitive list types.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/04 22:16:05


Post by: jeff white


Exactly


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/05 21:54:43


Post by: Vaktathi


 Mezmorki wrote:
I've said it many times, but the lack of diversity in the Matched Play mission set (Eternal War), which is what underpins competitive play, means that players can more clearly optimize for the very narrow scoring system used.

The more fundamentally diverse the objectives are and the ways in which an army needs to operate to achieve those objectives, the harder it is to optimize around meta netlists.

You can maybe optimize for a few missions, but might be weaker in other missions. Or you can take an army list that's more flexible and jack-of-all-trades like - which would result I believe in a larger pool of decent competitive list types.
I think the missions are fundamentally one of tabletop 40k's weakest points throughout its entire existence across all editions.

Despite all the work that goes into the art, the models, the stats, the game mechanics, rule clarity, etc, the gameplay itself is often the single most disappointing aspect of 40k, and a lot of that is the missions.

When a game is "draw a line in the middle, put one objective on each side, throw some terrain on, deploy twelve inches up the board, go!" or "randomly kill something or move to a point on the board every turn to score a point based on what a card deck pulls", that makes for an decent competitive sporty type of listbuilding play, but it's basically completely unattached to the rest of the game universe, and tactically often offers little depth.

Your average game of Dropzone Commander for instance is a much more narrative feeling game despite being very pickup/tournament oriented. You know you're dropping in from orbit, beneath an anti-missile halo, to engage at close quarters because active countermeasures intercept long range fire, and need something off the ground that your infantry are going to have to go searching for inside buildings in a city, and your opponent is burning down from the skies hoping to do the same thing. For a basic pickup game, that's a powerfully illustrative scene, that you just don't get with 40k the same way beyond "your two random factions pulled from the galaxy show up here to do things dictated by a card deck or fight over two points of ground on either side of this table", and a whole lot more tactical decisionmaking is involved on the parts of both players.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/05 22:03:39


Post by: Da Boss


I reckon 3e is the only one with decent missions, but in my experience people generally didn't want to play them, and the ones that didn't use the standard FOC barely saw any play.

4e's missions aren't terrible, but they're not as good as 3e, and 5e's are another downgrade.

I quite dislike the deck based mission idea, it just seems like it's better suited to a larger scale game like epic than a game like 40K.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/05 22:18:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


There were a lot of fun missions in the CA books in 8th.

Then 9th changed everything into the same boring mission with slight changes on where the markers were placed...


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/06 14:03:00


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think if you're willing to look past 4th's "basic" missions, you'll find a lot of fun.

My buddy and I just played a mission called Sabotage; I got to put out a number of sentries (that follow some pretty cool and unique "Sentry" rules for the mission type) and a single Troops choice. The sentries have their own movement rules, rules for raising the alarm, etc.

My opponent, on the other hand, was trying to sabotage an objective in the center of the table (where my one Troops was deployed).

The attacker can choose whether or not to try for stealth (unreliable but effective), closing past the sentries all the way to the troops in the center before the alarm is sounded - or they can try the brute force approach and be spotted almost instantly.

There's a few turns of sentries vs. stealthers movement that don't count against the 40k game length, and the 40k game "officially" starts (in terms of the turn count for variable length) when the alarm is sounded.

Missions like this really show the variation between armies - Imperial Guard get a whole platoon as their Troops in addition to the base level of Sentries for the IG. This means (shockingly!) that they're a good force for defending things - just like a modern infantry company, there are a lot of men to do all the lifting, packing, etc. and this includes guarding an objective.

One can easily imagine the platoons rotating out, and the sentries wandering about in their boredom as the Orks (in this case) sneak closer and closer. A sentry is killed in Close Combat and fails to raise the alarm (failing his 4+ to cry out), but his body is seen later by another wandering sentry, and the alarm is raised. Helmets are donned and lasrifles loaded as the Guardsmen scramble to their positions, the Orks bellowing aloud as the thunder of their vehicular support just begins to be heard, engines turning over (off the board!) as they prepare to charge.

Meanwhile, at the company HQ, the Imperial Guard Captain musters his men and also prepares to move forwards to relieve the defending platoon...

well, Skimmers are OP I guess so it sucks.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 03:55:07


Post by: Alpharius


Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 04:05:31


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!
I loved 2nd Edition. I had the Guard Codex memorised. I could literally sit down with a pad and a pen and write out lists without needing the Codex beside me. Everything was kind of wild and unhinged back then, and whilst that gave us Herohammer, it was still loads of fun.

Of course, Necromunda was 2nd Ed 40k perfected.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 04:33:29


Post by: Alpharius


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!
I loved 2nd Edition. I had the Guard Codex memorised. I could literally sit down with a pad and a pen and write out lists without needing the Codex beside me. Everything was kind of wild and unhinged back then, and whilst that gave us Herohammer, it was still loads of fun.

Of course, Necromunda was 2nd Ed 40k perfected.


If only Australia wasn't so damn far away!

Is there a dedicated 40K 2nd edition thread/area somewhere here on Dakka?


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 04:36:32


Post by: Zenithfleet


 Da Boss wrote:
I reckon 3e is the only one with decent missions, but in my experience people generally didn't want to play them, and the ones that didn't use the standard FOC barely saw any play.


I had the same experience back then, although my opponents were limited to a few friends.

I feel like there's some sort of psychological effect that says, "I must play a bare-bones, line-up-and-fight game in order to prove I am the best general. If I play some other mission, my victory could be due to the scenario giving me an unfair advantage / random noise caused by the unusual setup / etc, and therefore I can't count it as a REAL victory showing off my superiorityness." It happened to all of us, including me.

Edit: It's like pro Super Smash Bros gamers insisting on only playing the Final Destination stage (the totally flat boring one) and with no random items allowed.

The irony is that being able to take on an unusual mission with peculiar challenges that might even be slanted against you is probably a better way to prove your skills.

That era of GW had missions for days in all its games (from 5th ed WFB to Epic 40,000 and BFG as well as 3rd ed 40K). Sad to see it decline later.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 05:23:11


Post by: Insectum7


 Alpharius wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!
I loved 2nd Edition. I had the Guard Codex memorised. I could literally sit down with a pad and a pen and write out lists without needing the Codex beside me. Everything was kind of wild and unhinged back then, and whilst that gave us Herohammer, it was still loads of fun.

Of course, Necromunda was 2nd Ed 40k perfected.


If only Australia wasn't so damn far away!

Is there a dedicated 40K 2nd edition thread/area somewhere here on Dakka?
Not one that I know of, but I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat. Actually a buddy of mine and I were just talking about trying some Rogue Trader, although I'm not sure how realistic that is, I only have the main book and the Compilation. For 2nd ed I've got the whole set and all the codexes.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 14:10:50


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


2nd edition did have some tough character builds, but at least you always had the option of hitting them with a goobs lascannon. 2d6 wounds was never anything to scoff at.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 14:25:38


Post by: nou


There is a dedicated 2nd Facebook group that is very active.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 14:34:14


Post by: Pacific


Yep Oldhammer is massive on FB - tens of thousands in some of the groups, so I think if anyone interested posted on there they would probably find local players without too much trouble.

 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Well, was going to say it's a shame I am across the pond!

I've started toying with 2nd ed too, although so far have only got a few books and codecies. I am thinking of maybe Chaos, have just read Talon of Horus (awesome book btw if anyone hasn't read it!) but doing a scouring-era Sons of Horus force. So when they have been well and truly beaten and have their backs to the wall, trying to escape to the EoT, but still have their Legion code/brotherhood fraternity. Maybe against Imperial Guard or Eldar? (Who were great fun in 2nd ed). Would be a nice opportunity to do some conversions on the lovely new Chaos plastics, make them look slightly less chaos-y with a few 30k-era armour mods thrown in.

But need to finish off my Epic 30k/Great Crusade project first!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 14:40:14


Post by: A.T.


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
2nd edition did have some tough character builds, but at least you always had the option of hitting them with a goobs lascannon. 2d6 wounds was never anything to scoff at.
Librarians were known to scoff at them with their toughness of 10, three stacked 4++ saves and rerolls.
Exarchs with swooping hawk wings and vortex grenades on the other hand...


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 15:54:48


Post by: Alpharius


 Pacific wrote:
Yep Oldhammer is massive on FB - tens of thousands in some of the groups, so I think if anyone interested posted on there they would probably find local players without too much trouble.

 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Well, was going to say it's a shame I am across the pond!

I've started toying with 2nd ed too, although so far have only got a few books and codecies. I am thinking of maybe Chaos, have just read Talon of Horus (awesome book btw if anyone hasn't read it!) but doing a scouring-era Sons of Horus force. So when they have been well and truly beaten and have their backs to the wall, trying to escape to the EoT, but still have their Legion code/brotherhood fraternity. Maybe against Imperial Guard or Eldar? (Who were great fun in 2nd ed). Would be a nice opportunity to do some conversions on the lovely new Chaos plastics, make them look slightly less chaos-y with a few 30k-era armour mods thrown in.

But need to finish off my Epic 30k/Great Crusade project first!


That sounds awesome - and a lot of fun to build, paint and play!

I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?

But at this point, playing 2nd Edition will be purely for fun, and some of the more game-breaking, fun-sapping combos can be avoided for the sake of a good game? Or at least not show up all the time...

Does anyone know of a good source for 'counts as' Squats - i.e., "Space Dwarfs"?

I just love me some Exo-Armored stunties, for some reason.

Everything else you'd want can be pretty much found in the current GW line, in terms of Chaos, Marines, Orks, Eldar, etc.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 16:00:30


Post by: H.B.M.C.


A.T. wrote:
Librarians were known to scoff at them with their toughness of 10, three stacked 4++ saves and rerolls.
Exarchs with swooping hawk wings and vortex grenades on the other hand...
I remember a game from years ago where a Lictor was locked in close combat with a Terminator Librarian. The Terminator couldn't beat the Lictor, but the Lictor couldn't hurt the Terminator. So there they stood, locked in a not-so-deadly stalemate. I presume they're still there to this day.

 Alpharius wrote:
I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?
Eldar. Yes. A thousand times Eldar. Cheating panzees!!!



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 16:27:24


Post by: aphyon


I think if you're willing to look past 4th's "basic" missions, you'll find a lot of fun.


Yes, i love all the optional game mode rules in the 4th ed BRB. we have upscaled some of the mission layouts for full scale games like the bunker defense mission and the convoy assault.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 16:54:27


Post by: Shuma-Gorath


 Alpharius wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
Yep Oldhammer is massive on FB - tens of thousands in some of the groups, so I think if anyone interested posted on there they would probably find local players without too much trouble.

 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Well, was going to say it's a shame I am across the pond!

I've started toying with 2nd ed too, although so far have only got a few books and codecies. I am thinking of maybe Chaos, have just read Talon of Horus (awesome book btw if anyone hasn't read it!) but doing a scouring-era Sons of Horus force. So when they have been well and truly beaten and have their backs to the wall, trying to escape to the EoT, but still have their Legion code/brotherhood fraternity. Maybe against Imperial Guard or Eldar? (Who were great fun in 2nd ed). Would be a nice opportunity to do some conversions on the lovely new Chaos plastics, make them look slightly less chaos-y with a few 30k-era armour mods thrown in.

But need to finish off my Epic 30k/Great Crusade project first!


That sounds awesome - and a lot of fun to build, paint and play!

I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?

But at this point, playing 2nd Edition will be purely for fun, and some of the more game-breaking, fun-sapping combos can be avoided for the sake of a good game? Or at least not show up all the time...

Does anyone know of a good source for 'counts as' Squats - i.e., "Space Dwarfs"?

I just love me some Exo-Armored stunties, for some reason.

Everything else you'd want can be pretty much found in the current GW line, in terms of Chaos, Marines, Orks, Eldar, etc.


Squats wise today apart from converting a bunch of dwarves of which there are many miniature makers on the fantasy side, I know of:

Hasslefree has some Called 'Grymm' .
Grim Forge has literally a couple.
Wargames Atlantic have a plastic box set called 'Einherjar'
Also the AOS Kharadron Overlords work as squats too.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 22:06:48


Post by: Hellebore


 Shuma-Gorath wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
Yep Oldhammer is massive on FB - tens of thousands in some of the groups, so I think if anyone interested posted on there they would probably find local players without too much trouble.

 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Well, was going to say it's a shame I am across the pond!

I've started toying with 2nd ed too, although so far have only got a few books and codecies. I am thinking of maybe Chaos, have just read Talon of Horus (awesome book btw if anyone hasn't read it!) but doing a scouring-era Sons of Horus force. So when they have been well and truly beaten and have their backs to the wall, trying to escape to the EoT, but still have their Legion code/brotherhood fraternity. Maybe against Imperial Guard or Eldar? (Who were great fun in 2nd ed). Would be a nice opportunity to do some conversions on the lovely new Chaos plastics, make them look slightly less chaos-y with a few 30k-era armour mods thrown in.

But need to finish off my Epic 30k/Great Crusade project first!


That sounds awesome - and a lot of fun to build, paint and play!

I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?

But at this point, playing 2nd Edition will be purely for fun, and some of the more game-breaking, fun-sapping combos can be avoided for the sake of a good game? Or at least not show up all the time...

Does anyone know of a good source for 'counts as' Squats - i.e., "Space Dwarfs"?

I just love me some Exo-Armored stunties, for some reason.

Everything else you'd want can be pretty much found in the current GW line, in terms of Chaos, Marines, Orks, Eldar, etc.


Squats wise today apart from converting a bunch of dwarves of which there are many miniature makers on the fantasy side, I know of:

Hasslefree has some Called 'Grymm' .
Grim Forge has literally a couple.
Wargames Atlantic have a plastic box set called 'Einherjar'
Also the AOS Kharadron Overlords work as squats too.


There's the obvious Mantic Forgefathers:

https://www.manticgames.com/games/warpath/forge-fathers/


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 22:15:11


Post by: Strg Alt


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
2nd edition did have some tough character builds, but at least you always had the option of hitting them with a goobs lascannon. 2d6 wounds was never anything to scoff at.


Heavy bolter caused already D4 wounds. Heavy weapons were truly "heavy" weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Librarians were known to scoff at them with their toughness of 10, three stacked 4++ saves and rerolls.
Exarchs with swooping hawk wings and vortex grenades on the other hand...
I remember a game from years ago where a Lictor was locked in close combat with a Terminator Librarian. The Terminator couldn't beat the Lictor, but the Lictor couldn't hurt the Terminator. So there they stood, locked in a not-so-deadly stalemate. I presume they're still there to this day.

 Alpharius wrote:
I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?
Eldar. Yes. A thousand times Eldar. Cheating panzees!!!



Avatar in raging close combat:
Eldar player fires flamer/melta weapons in close combat without the chance of hurting the Avatar.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/08 22:39:20


Post by: Insectum7


 Strg Alt wrote:
 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
2nd edition did have some tough character builds, but at least you always had the option of hitting them with a goobs lascannon. 2d6 wounds was never anything to scoff at.

Heavy bolter caused already D4 wounds. Heavy weapons were truly "heavy" weapons.
Yeah, and a Space Marine Captain had 3 wounds. Basically being hit with any heavy weapon was nerve wracking.

Assault Cannon did D10, making it suuuuuper dangerous with all its potential hits. Multimelta 2D12. Basically anything that failed it's save/s was toast.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Avatar in raging close combat:
Eldar player fires flamer/melta weapons in close combat without the chance of hurting the Avatar.

You know I never even considered that, but that's pretty great.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 13:21:45


Post by: Pacific


Yes I remember the Multimelta, get hit with that and fail a save and get dissolved into a puddle of goo.

I remember having to make sure you had some of those (and also Lascannons, which I think were 2D6 wounds? I forget) to try and take out Carnifexes if playing against Nids.

Speaking of which - they were nasty as hell in 2nd edition. I would definitely say they were the 'broken' faction, beyond Space Wolves or Eldar. I remember one game against where I lost, but wasn't tabled, and that had happened every time we had played so I viewed it as a moral victory!

Space Wolves were ace in that you could fit in Terminator-armoured Wolf Guard in your standard squads. So you'd have the rest of the squad die around them, then the one guy with his "lol 2D6 saving throw" hanging around for some time after. With a decent CC weapon as well those guys were like mini champions and definitely a threat, even with only the one wound.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 14:14:35


Post by: Alpharius


Long Fangs being able to split fire was something that made everyone else jealous too!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 14:43:35


Post by: The_Real_Chris


Spoletta wrote:

8th and 9th edition have a lot less realistic feel. They don't even try to look like a standard wargame. They use rules which are as generic as possible. Like the fact that they do not make any difference between vehicles and monstrous creatures.
This makes the edition a lot more flavorful but pays with a lot more complexity on codex level. The game was made generic, so it is very bland without the additional seasoning given by the specific factions and units.


Very good point about how they lok and feel - I have felt I am playing one of the many fantasy style games not a wargame when I use the armies in 40k now. (Though I would say complication not complexity is being added - the game remains quite basic but with lots of complicated interactions layered on top that still don't make it more complex...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 aphyon wrote:


The reality was that in 4th unless you were a skimmer you were better off walking behind the transport than being in it.



Which of course is like a modern warfare game as your lightly armoured transports aren't meant to mix it up with AT weapons, your dismounts and support should neutralise those before you can continue on.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 18:33:39


Post by: aphyon


Which of course is like a modern warfare game as your lightly armoured transports aren't meant to mix it up with AT weapons, your dismounts and support should neutralise those before you can continue on.


In the abstract nature of the 40K game in distances, you require the transports to get you across the table so your infantry can dismount and deal with said threat. a properly laid out table will have enough LOS blocking terrain that makes using said transports an advantage if not necessary for non-horde or vehicle-less armies. 5th ed got the damage table correct IMHO, sure you had a chance to drop a vehicle with a well-placed shot (like in real life) however you were not nearly guaranteed a kill every time you hit like with the 4th ed tables.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 18:48:20


Post by: Strg Alt


 Pacific wrote:
Yes I remember the Multimelta, get hit with that and fail a save and get dissolved into a puddle of goo.

I remember having to make sure you had some of those (and also Lascannons, which I think were 2D6 wounds? I forget) to try and take out Carnifexes if playing against Nids.

Speaking of which - they were nasty as hell in 2nd edition. I would definitely say they were the 'broken' faction, beyond Space Wolves or Eldar. I remember one game against where I lost, but wasn't tabled, and that had happened every time we had played so I viewed it as a moral victory!

Space Wolves were ace in that you could fit in Terminator-armoured Wolf Guard in your standard squads. So you'd have the rest of the squad die around them, then the one guy with his "lol 2D6 saving throw" hanging around for some time after. With a decent CC weapon as well those guys were like mini champions and definitely a threat, even with only the one wound.


Factions felt unique in 2nd because there were only a few of them which made making them play different a whole lot easier. When you faced the Tyranids for example your troops feared the prospect of being eaten alive. How was that possible as they never felt special since then? Before play the Tyranid player would roll on a table for each opposing unit of the opponent representing Tyranid creatures waging a guerilla war against them long before the 40K battle even started. This meant that those units began play with handicaps but sometimes even boni.

The classic one:
"Jones is acting strangely."


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 19:14:41


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I don't know where this "kill every time you got a hit" thing came in 4th.

In 4th, a Lascannon hitting a Chimera had a roughly 28% chance of destroying a Chimera with a single hit; in 5th it dropped to 17% (11% survivability increase in 5th).

Vs a Leman Russ:
11% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 4th
6% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 5th
(5% survivability increase)

This illustrates that in 4th, the ARMOR of a vehicle was more important to its survival than the DAMAGE MODEL, while in 5th, the DAMAGE MODEL tended to even out most vehicles (lighter armored vehicles got stronger relative to more heavily armored vehicles).

The effect of this can be seen in 5th easily, where transports dominated but main battle tanks really didn't.

4th is better IMHO precisely because "do I choose a Leman Russ or a Chimera full of Veterans" isn't automatically won by the mechanized infantry every single time.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 19:19:01


Post by: aphyon


You are mathhammering, dice averages are just that, an average. real world experience with 4th ed VS 5th was that unless you were in a devilfish or wave serpent your transports were pretty well death traps because of the combination of the vehicle damage tables and the rules for the infantry being transported when the vehicle exploded or got wrecked.

5th was an overall improvement over 4th in many areas of core rules save the wound allocation mechanic that got abused and vehicle assault rules.



Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 19:28:01


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 aphyon wrote:
You are mathhammering, dice averages are just that, an average. real world experience with 4th ed VS 5th was that unless you were in a devilfish or wave serpent your transports were pretty well death traps because of the combination of the vehicle damage tables and the rules for the infantry being transported when the vehicle exploded or got wrecked.

5th was an overall improvement over 4th in many areas of core rules save the wound allocation mechanic that got abused and vehicle assault rules.



I disagree. Getting rid of 4th edition terrain system in favor of TLOS was a mistake, as was adding "run" for everyone in addition.

And I also disagree that "real world experience" meant 5th was objectively better.When my friends and I agreed to play 4th, the first army I built explicitly for that edition was Armageddon Steel Legion. Now? Having played TONS of games with the edition just in the last few months? I think Chimeras and the way they cooperate with infantry is WAY BETTER than I remember in 5th.

When I played Mech Guard in 5th, what I was playing was a tank company that sometimes dropped off infantry if the tanks happened to die. Otherwise? No reason to ever disembark (until Turn 5 to stand on objectives herp derp). When I play Mech Guard in 4th, as I am now, I'm playing a Mechanized Infantry company, where the IFV (Chimera) is an integral part of the platoon it is in, and works in close concert with both mounted and dismounted infantry to achieve the mission objectives.

Heck, earlier in ANOTHER thread [the grog-hammer one] there was a discussion regarding "how to make transports not automatically better than footsloggers" and making the transport actually have drawbacks is one way to do that. A unit having a transport in 4th is gaining a tactical option, not bringing an auto-include.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 22:19:12


Post by: Da Boss


In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.

5e just swung it too far the other way, getting rid of all the negative rules AND dropping the price of transports across the board.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 22:22:56


Post by: jeff white


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think if you're willing to look past 4th's "basic" missions, you'll find a lot of fun.

My buddy and I just played a mission called Sabotage; I got to put out a number of sentries (that follow some pretty cool and unique "Sentry" rules for the mission type) and a single Troops choice. The sentries have their own movement rules, rules for raising the alarm, etc.
Spoiler:

My opponent, on the other hand, was trying to sabotage an objective in the center of the table (where my one Troops was deployed).

The attacker can choose whether or not to try for stealth (unreliable but effective), closing past the sentries all the way to the troops in the center before the alarm is sounded - or they can try the brute force approach and be spotted almost instantly.

There's a few turns of sentries vs. stealthers movement that don't count against the 40k game length, and the 40k game "officially" starts (in terms of the turn count for variable length) when the alarm is sounded.

Missions like this really show the variation between armies - Imperial Guard get a whole platoon as their Troops in addition to the base level of Sentries for the IG. This means (shockingly!) that they're a good force for defending things - just like a modern infantry company, there are a lot of men to do all the lifting, packing, etc. and this includes guarding an objective.

One can easily imagine the platoons rotating out, and the sentries wandering about in their boredom as the Orks (in this case) sneak closer and closer. A sentry is killed in Close Combat and fails to raise the alarm (failing his 4+ to cry out), but his body is seen later by another wandering sentry, and the alarm is raised. Helmets are donned and lasrifles loaded as the Guardsmen scramble to their positions, the Orks bellowing aloud as the thunder of their vehicular support just begins to be heard, engines turning over (off the board!) as they prepare to charge.

Meanwhile, at the company HQ, the Imperial Guard Captain musters his men and also prepares to move forwards to relieve the defending platoon...

well, Skimmers are OP I guess so it sucks
.


I remember sabotage. It was a blast!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!

My favorite edition, the one that sold me for life on the hobby. And I am not sure why people complain about herohammer and vortex grenades and viruses and so on, when the fixes were easy. Limit characters, psykers, spam and cheese, and remove the virus card. As for the vortex grenade, iirc it was 50pts, and could scatter back on one’s own dudes… so risky. But, usually we didn’t use it, either…


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 22:36:23


Post by: A.T.


 Da Boss wrote:
5e just swung it too far the other way, getting rid of all the negative rules AND dropping the price of transports across the board.
It was a good example of the writers being out of sync. The price drops for transports started in 4th when they made more sense (DA and CSM 4e) and were not readdressed for 5th.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/09 23:56:01


Post by: Jayden63


 Da Boss wrote:
In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.

5e just swung it too far the other way, getting rid of all the negative rules AND dropping the price of transports across the board.


This mirror is my thoughts as well. When I play 4th edition, we do take out the entanglement rules. Solves a lot of problems. I also feel that transports need to be based around 50 point rhino. If it's better than a rhino it should cost more than 50 points. If it's not better than a rhino it can be a little cheaper. However having said that transport should probably be in the range of 35 to 70 points. Any more than that and they almost get too expensive to use or worse have so much war gear on them that they become main battle tanks.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 01:49:52


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 02:41:16


Post by: Insectum7


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.
Which weapons do you use, standard Multilaser and HB or some other combo? I remember seeing (dual?) Heavy Flamers occasionally. Am I remembering that right?


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 04:53:50


Post by: Jayden63


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.


Chimeras were 55 base with a multi-laser and heavy bolter in the 2008 guard book. It was extra armor that was ridiculously overpriced. Should have topped out at 10 pts. But your 100 point Chimera has a lot of extras added to it.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 06:42:06


Post by: aphyon


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.
Which weapons do you use, standard Multilaser and HB or some other combo? I remember seeing (dual?) Heavy Flamers occasionally. Am I remembering that right?


FW had several alternate turrets for it. the standard out of the box was the multi-laser with a hull heavy bolter.


IIRC turret options were
. autocannon
. twin-linked heavy flamer
. twin-linked heavy bolter

I know you also had the option to swap the hull weapon for a heavy flamer or a multi-melta


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 08:04:28


Post by: Blackie


 Da Boss wrote:
In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.



That's one of my issues with 4th, I played only orks back then and all my transports were paper things that carried melee dudes with very low saves. I vastly prefer 5th edition rules about vehicles.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 08:58:41


Post by: Platuan4th


 aphyon wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.
Which weapons do you use, standard Multilaser and HB or some other combo? I remember seeing (dual?) Heavy Flamers occasionally. Am I remembering that right?


FW had several alternate turrets for it. the standard out of the box was the multi-laser with a hull heavy bolter.


IIRC turret options were
. autocannon
. twin-linked heavy flamer
. twin-linked heavy bolter

I know you also had the option to swap the hull weapon for a heavy flamer or a multi-melta


The base Guard book also had a single Heavy Bolter turret option. I only remember this because my Mech Guard Platooon Command Chimeras have them converted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


I'd play 2nd with you, man.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 11:07:39


Post by: aphyon


 Blackie wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.



That's one of my issues with 4th, I played only orks back then and all my transports were paper things that carried melee dudes with very low saves. I vastly prefer 5th edition rules about vehicles.


Especially given that you used the 4th ed codex halfway through 5th, i own a copy of the dex myself-love that ramshackle table.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 11:33:35


Post by: A.T.


 Blackie wrote:
That's one of my issues with 4th, I played only orks back then and all my transports were paper things that carried melee dudes with very low saves. I vastly prefer 5th edition rules about vehicles.
Did you never play the joy that is the five battlewagon line? :p


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 11:56:43


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think my Chimeras are 100 flat. 85 weapons, HKM and Extra Armor I think gives them 100. The assault platoon runs 103 because they have smoke.
Which weapons do you use, standard Multilaser and HB or some other combo? I remember seeing (dual?) Heavy Flamers occasionally. Am I remembering that right?


I bring dual HF for the assault platoon and ML/HB for the regular platoons. Same price.

These are 4e prices, worth noting.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 12:02:40


Post by: Blackie


A.T. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
That's one of my issues with 4th, I played only orks back then and all my transports were paper things that carried melee dudes with very low saves. I vastly prefer 5th edition rules about vehicles.
Did you never play the joy that is the five battlewagon line? :p


I played 3 battlewagons pretty regularly in 5th . Never played any game above the 1500 points format until 7th edition.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 12:13:17


Post by: Unit1126PLL


My Ork 4th edition friend uses a BW with 9 meganobs inside.

It's terrifying


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 12:31:10


Post by: Pacific


 Alpharius wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
Yep Oldhammer is massive on FB - tens of thousands in some of the groups, so I think if anyone interested posted on there they would probably find local players without too much trouble.

 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


Well, was going to say it's a shame I am across the pond!

I've started toying with 2nd ed too, although so far have only got a few books and codecies. I am thinking of maybe Chaos, have just read Talon of Horus (awesome book btw if anyone hasn't read it!) but doing a scouring-era Sons of Horus force. So when they have been well and truly beaten and have their backs to the wall, trying to escape to the EoT, but still have their Legion code/brotherhood fraternity. Maybe against Imperial Guard or Eldar? (Who were great fun in 2nd ed). Would be a nice opportunity to do some conversions on the lovely new Chaos plastics, make them look slightly less chaos-y with a few 30k-era armour mods thrown in.

But need to finish off my Epic 30k/Great Crusade project first!


That sounds awesome - and a lot of fun to build, paint and play!

I think the true kings of 40K 2nd edition were probably Space Wolves, Eldar and Chaos Marines?

But at this point, playing 2nd Edition will be purely for fun, and some of the more game-breaking, fun-sapping combos can be avoided for the sake of a good game? Or at least not show up all the time...

Does anyone know of a good source for 'counts as' Squats - i.e., "Space Dwarfs"?

I just love me some Exo-Armored stunties, for some reason.

Everything else you'd want can be pretty much found in the current GW line, in terms of Chaos, Marines, Orks, Eldar, etc.


I would go with Mantic, they carry miniatures that cover most of the Squat army with the Forge Father range (they are pretty cheap too!)

The only problem I would say is that they look too heavily armoured (if you go for the 'brotherhood' guys - not the ones in dunagarees armed with spanners! ) for the Squat brotherhood statline of 6+ flak armour save. Maybe add a couple of points to them each and make them 4+ (carapace) or 5+ (mesh) equivalents?

Here are a few of the basic guys I painted up years ago, think they are pretty cool minis
Spoiler:




Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 13:42:48


Post by: Blackie


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
My Ork 4th edition friend uses a BW with 9 meganobs inside.

It's terrifying


It shouldn't be. That vehicle is super easy to crack since it has AV12 in the side and it's open topped. Then D6 movement makes the meganob unit quite easy to handle.

In 5th my competitive list had 3 BWs, Ghaz and nob bikers. All the eggs in the same basket has never been rewarding with orks, since we never had durable stuff. Even the infamous cheesy nob bikers of 5th were not really scary if the ork list didn't have other threats like 3 BWs with permanent 4+ cover save, full of boyz and Ghaz.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 14:04:20


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Open Topped is a blessing and a curse, so it isn't all bad. It is only AV 12 on the side, meaning maneuver can help protect it.

Meganobs move 2d6 and pick the highest, so they are slower than usual....

... which is why they are in a tank


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 14:48:21


Post by: A.T.


 Blackie wrote:
It shouldn't be. That vehicle is super easy to crack since it has AV12 in the side and it's open topped. Then D6 movement makes the meganob unit quite easy to handle.
Something like a one in ten chance of stopping a shielded wagon with a side-on shot from a BS4 missile launcher or lance IIRC. You would be looking to assault into your opponents deployment zone on the second turn.

Effectiveness varied but one of the nice things about the 4e ork codex was that you had plenty of options for viable lists, your opponent couldn't second guess the wagon rush because on any given day they might be met with kanz, or hordes, or bikes, or a big gunline, and so on.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 15:06:27


Post by: amanita


4th Ed. went too far in punishing vehicles and 5th swung too far the other way, just like Da Boss said. GW had always been notorious for over correction - wait too long to fix an obvious problem and when they do they throw the baby out with the bath water. What was needed was more fine tuning and balancing with the vehicle damage table, which is what we did while adding another result.

Games Workshop instead added the hull point mechanic, making vehicles get destroyed by an additional method and when that obviously failed they simply turned them into giant rolling meat sacks for simplicity's sake. Some really like this, but I can't fathom why.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 16:00:16


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 jeff white wrote:

My favorite edition, the one that sold me for life on the hobby. And I am not sure why people complain about herohammer and vortex grenades and viruses and so on, when the fixes were easy. Limit characters, psykers, spam and cheese, and remove the virus card. As for the vortex grenade, iirc it was 50pts, and could scatter back on one’s own dudes… so risky. But, usually we didn’t use it, either…


Snap. Add in GW's grand tourney mods and you have a blast, favourite wargame edition of 40k for me.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/10 19:13:58


Post by: aphyon


Games Workshop instead added the hull point mechanic, making vehicles get destroyed by an additional method and when that obviously failed they simply turned them into giant rolling meat sacks for simplicity's sake. Some really like this, but I can't fathom why.


Agreed, having a vehicle mechanic in the damage table that made them feel more like vehicles, then stacking a secondary damage mechanic that was way to easy to inflict punished you for taking them (6th/7th ed), then going totally abstract with 8th was a bridge to far.

I think the mix Andy Chambers pulled off for DUST was a good compromise. they still had wounds, but facings mattered for weapon firing arcs, and there was damage reduction all the way up to immunity as the armor class (toughness) went up and the power of the weapon being used went down.

As an example, small arms could hurt things like open topped light walkers or artillery tractors up to armor class 3 but anything that was a proper tank (class 4) or even heavier was immune. If they had done that with 8th ed 40K i think it would have been a better mechanic.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 03:10:06


Post by: Alpharius


jeff white wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!

My favorite edition, the one that sold me for life on the hobby. And I am not sure why people complain about herohammer and vortex grenades and viruses and so on, when the fixes were easy. Limit characters, psykers, spam and cheese, and remove the virus card. As for the vortex grenade, iirc it was 50pts, and could scatter back on one’s own dudes… so risky. But, usually we didn’t use it, either…


You're...not wrong!

Also, I'm the same as you in that 2nd Edition 40K is what started me on the wargaming path that I've been on every since.

Talk about a Golden Age of GW gaming too - WFB was fun, and my all time favorite GW game(s) came out then too - Space Marine/Titan Legion!

40K 2nd and SM/TL were the most fun I've ever had wargaming too - so yeah, I'm bringing both back!

Platuan4th wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:
Nostalgia has kicked in hard for me - I'm starting up 40K 2nd...again!

Now, the challenge will be finding like-minded players here in the 21st century, but either way, it will be a fun ride!


I'd play 2nd with you, man.


It's a deal!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 03:55:15


Post by: Insectum7


 Alpharius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
I'd play 2nd with you, man.

It's a deal!
Likewise!

So what are the chances any of us are in the same area? (San Francisco here)


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 12:34:49


Post by: Platuan4th


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Alpharius wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:
I'd play 2nd with you, man.

It's a deal!
Likewise!

So what are the chances any of us are in the same area? (San Francisco here)


I'm in Tampa.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 17:25:23


Post by: Insectum7


 Platuan4th wrote:

I'm in Tampa.
Well that's only about 4000 kilometers, practically next door! :p


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:10:21


Post by: Alpharius


OK, so far we've got:

San Francisco
Tampa
Boston

We pretty much picked the 3 places farthest away from each other!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:14:27


Post by: Rihgu


Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:18:13


Post by: Insectum7


Rihgu wrote:
Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all
Weren't there some issues with that? I haven't kept up.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:19:53


Post by: Rihgu


 Insectum7 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all
Weren't there some issues with that? I haven't kept up.


Not that I've heard of? Technical issues or ethical issues? I've been using it technically fine fairly consistently. Don't know if the company in charge turns out to be neo-nazis or using the service to groom minors, though.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:20:17


Post by: Strg Alt


 Alpharius wrote:
OK, so far we've got:

San Francisco
Tampa
Boston

We pretty much picked the 3 places farthest away from each other!


I still remember watching the "Streets of San Francicso" with Karl Malden & Michael Douglas. Meet there, rent a tram and play 40K aboard while driving across the hilly cityscape.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 19:43:17


Post by: Mezmorki


 Insectum7 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all
Weren't there some issues with that? I haven't kept up.


There was some internet bru-ha-ha about the company managing TTS not properly paying royalties to another company that was selling Premium mods on the platform. Who the heck knows.

TTS is pretty awesome for 40K though.

I need to get my ProHammer / classic 40K table mod cleaned up and properly added to the workshop. I remade a lot of old tokens based on 2nd edition style (overwatch, broken, etc) to use with ProHammer. Also a whole custom terrain layout thing. Makes playing games pretty easy.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 20:02:45


Post by: Insectum7


Rihgu wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all
Weren't there some issues with that? I haven't kept up.


Not that I've heard of? Technical issues or ethical issues? I've been using it technically fine fairly consistently. Don't know if the company in charge turns out to be neo-nazis or using the service to groom minors, though.
Oh I thought they got into legal trouble or something. But if you're using it and it's working fine then I suppose it's still viable


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 20:13:25


Post by: Vaktathi


 amanita wrote:

Games Workshop instead added the hull point mechanic, making vehicles get destroyed by an additional method and when that obviously failed they simply turned them into giant rolling meat sacks for simplicity's sake. Some really like this, but I can't fathom why.
Yeah, that was one of the single most boneheaded things GW ever did. It didn't work terribly well, added another stat to print and track and record, and just frustrated gameplay.

 Jayden63 wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:
In the unlikely event I play 4e again (not because it's bad, just because I'm being realistic about the prospect) I'm going to get rid of the disembark on a penetrating hit rule. I think that mostly solves the problems with transports in 4e. Being entangled after a destroyed result is mostly fine I reckon.

5e just swung it too far the other way, getting rid of all the negative rules AND dropping the price of transports across the board.


This mirror is my thoughts as well. When I play 4th edition, we do take out the entanglement rules. Solves a lot of problems. I also feel that transports need to be based around 50 point rhino. If it's better than a rhino it should cost more than 50 points. If it's not better than a rhino it can be a little cheaper. However having said that transport should probably be in the range of 35 to 70 points. Any more than that and they almost get too expensive to use or worse have so much war gear on them that they become main battle tanks.

Yeah, the entanglement rules and auto-disembarks really cripple anything that can't force glances, and a lot of them just across the board needed a price cut.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't know where this "kill every time you got a hit" thing came in 4th.

In 4th, a Lascannon hitting a Chimera had a roughly 28% chance of destroying a Chimera with a single hit; in 5th it dropped to 17% (11% survivability increase in 5th).

Vs a Leman Russ:
11% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 4th
6% to be killed by a Lascannon hit in 5th
(5% survivability increase)

This illustrates that in 4th, the ARMOR of a vehicle was more important to its survival than the DAMAGE MODEL, while in 5th, the DAMAGE MODEL tended to even out most vehicles (lighter armored vehicles got stronger relative to more heavily armored vehicles).

The effect of this can be seen in 5th easily, where transports dominated but main battle tanks really didn't.

4th is better IMHO precisely because "do I choose a Leman Russ or a Chimera full of Veterans" isn't automatically won by the mechanized infantry every single time.
I'd submit that both vehicles being functionally terrible isn't a great proof that the edition worked better.

Both vehicles were were competitively poor and saw practically no use in typical 4E Guard tournament lists, particularly anything that placed (though few guard lists did in that edition), especially as AC's were banned from tournament play through most of the lifespan of the edition. On top of the vehicle damage table issues, the Russ tanks could only choose to shoot their turret weapon, or their other guns, not both, and the main guns just weren't that effective against anything but clumped up infantry in the open. They were garbage anti-tank or anti-monster, one S8 shot with 2d6 pick-highest pen *if* the center hole of the blast remained over the hull of the target and suffered movement penalties, was not great next to S10 AP1 BS4 Railguns or Prism Cannons, the tradeoff for AP3 instead of AP4 on the large blast option just was not worth it. You could go for S10 with a Demolisher making it far more functional at AT, at a massively reduced range and some increased cost. Unless you caught a Space Marine squad clumped up in the open with a juice Hit on the scatter dice, a Russ tank almost never earned its investment back bar excessively rare rolls.

Neither vehicle really *functioned*, the Chimera was crippled by the Transport rules and its excessive cost, while the Russ tank was crippled by the Ordnance rules and paying out the nose for AP3, particularly next to most contemporaries. These genuinely were two of the most underperforming units in the entire edition.

If you were to pick any edition of 40k, I literally can't think of one that would be worse for these two units specifically than 4th if you wanted to run them competitively in my experience.

with 5E, the big reason to take the Mechvets over the Russ was because the Russ couldn't score, and still wasn't particularly good AT, but other than that they're not exactly exclusionary options, taking lots of both is on the table.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 20:33:55


Post by: jeff white


 Mezmorki wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Just get Tabletop Simulator, y'all
Weren't there some issues with that? I haven't kept up.


There was some internet bru-ha-ha about the company managing TTS not properly paying royalties to another company that was selling Premium mods on the platform. Who the heck knows.

TTS is pretty awesome for 40K though.

I need to get my ProHammer / classic 40K table mod cleaned up and properly added to the workshop. I remade a lot of old tokens based on 2nd edition style (overwatch, broken, etc) to use with ProHammer. Also a whole custom terrain layout thing. Makes playing games pretty easy.

I hope to be in a place where I can avail myself of your hard work! Haven’t used TTS but wish that I could…


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/11 21:09:42


Post by: Platuan4th


 Alpharius wrote:
OK, so far we've got:

San Francisco
Tampa
Boston

We pretty much picked the 3 places farthest away from each other!


We've tri-pointed the entire country.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/18 01:38:51


Post by: Alpharius


What are the potentially game breaking implications of basing miniatures for games of 2nd Edition but using the 'modern' conventions, such as Space Marines on 32mm, Terminators on 40mm, etc.

As you all know, GW minis are expensive and I am a horribly slow hobbyist!


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/18 01:54:56


Post by: Mezmorki


Probably nothing.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/18 02:13:09


Post by: Insectum7


^Agreed, probably nothing. Certainly nothing "game breaking". You can fit more Marines in a building. . . Gasp! I think the biggest effects will be felt in CC when checking if models are within striking distance.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/18 07:01:50


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I mean big bases will play a small role in close combat, but it's not as if you've suddenly gone from Marines on 28mm bases to 100mm bases. It's not that much of a difference between their original bases and 32s.

 Alpharius wrote:
OK, so far we've got:

San Francisco
Tampa
Boston
Australia!

Wait... that doesn't help you either.


Oldhammer 40k @ 2021/12/18 07:46:56


Post by: aphyon


Well i have a friend i play games with online who lives in Perth, does that count for you H.B.M.C.?


Oldhammer 40k @ 2022/01/03 00:19:21


Post by: Ktulhut


Could any kind soul point me towards where I might still be able to find the 4th Edition ArmyBuilder files?