I started Warhammer 40,000 in 3rd edition. Anyone have nostalgia? I remember iron halos were better than terminator armor. HQ's could join squads. Missile launchers were more cost efficient than lascannons. Space Marines would have a hidden power fist in the sergeant with initiative 1. Force commanders had higher initiatives so went with power swords instead of power fists. And plasma guns were used because of AP 2 which ignored the saves. Used even when they would overheat without rerolls. Drop pods, infiltration, or rhinos were taken. No advancing. Iron warriors could have 4 basilisks and 9 obliterators, who had 4 weapons choices of heavy bolter, lascannon, missile launcher, and plasma gun. Inquisition daemonhunters had to use imperial guard to be good. And vehicles had armor values front and back. Anyone have previous editions remembering cool rules? Thankee.

You'll find a lot of nostalgia for older editions here. 4th was my favorite era, though I started in 2nd and remember it quite fondly as well.

I don't recall Iron Warriors being able to get 4 Basilisks though. I think they could take 4 Heavy Support choices, of which one could be a Basilisk.

My favorite? Elite Devastator squads with Tank Hunters and Lascannons for a virtual S10 AT squad. Personally I always kept my Captain with a Powerfist or equivalent. He wasn't there to duel other characters, but to bring the pain to units after tanking a few hits. I preferred just shooting enemy characters

I agree. Bringing a power sword to fight other marines will force you to roll 4+ to wound, if you don´t have any special rules such as Furious Charge. So the potential to fail is high. Better bring a jump pack & power fist. With high mobility you can then choose your fights more easily and perform wound rolls on 2+ in almost all cases.

I liked in 3rd-4th Ed when Dark Eldar actually had options and an Archon was legit scary in close combat. I remember rolling up in a Raider and dropping of an Archon, Drazar, and 8 incubi (with leader). They'd simply wreck faces.

I'll echo that dark eldar nostalgia. Being able thoroughly customize your HQs (and even your sybarites/wych squad leaders) back in the day was really satisfying. Plus, being able to hop out of a raider after it moved made your units *feel* really fast (Compared to now where you have your opponent's entire turn to forget about how far your raider moved before hopping out and moving at infantry speed.)

I absolutely loved the combat drug rules from the old dark eldar codex. You could give them to all your HQs and sergeants, and you could pick how many drugs you wanted that model to benefit from that turn. The more drugs you used at once, the more likely you were to overdose and hurt yourself.

I'll also give a shoutout to the 5th edition Pain Tokens. They were slightly messy when handing them out and redistributing them, but they were really viscerally satisfying. The Power From Pain rules haven't felt quite right ever since the token went away.

Also, this is from relatively recent editions, but I remember the jink rule fondly. Being able to trade next turn's offense for this turn's defense was an interesting choice and did a surprisingly good job of making our flying vehicles feel maneuverable.

Akshuly...
Las-plas was generally preferred over missile launchers in 3rd. Power fists made you strike last, not at I1, Drop Pods were only usable as a special deployment rule in the Planetstrike (Marine specific) scenario, Iron Warriors could take 4 Heavy Support choices, but Basilisks were still 0-1, Obliterators had six ranged weapons (plus power fists). Daemonhunters were never good unless you were doing some tailored Sanctuary shenanigans.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Akshuly...
Las-plas was generally preferred over missile launchers in 3rd. Power fists made you strike last, not at I1, Drop Pods were only usable as a special deployment rule in the Planetstrike (Marine specific) scenario, Iron Warriors could take 4 Heavy Support choices, but Basilisks were still 0-1, Obliterators had six ranged weapons (plus power fists). Daemonhunters were never good unless you were doing some tailored Sanctuary shenanigans.

Ackshually, ackshually . . .

Drop Pods were in the 4th ed codex as a unit. Drop Pods were useable in the 3rd ed book through a special rule where you could put your entire army in Deep Strike, but you were limited in the unit choices you could take. Only Infantry, Dreadnoughts and Land Speeders could be in your army.

I'm a total 2nd ed. zealot, but everyone knows that.

What I liked for 3rd was the way my Imperial Guard army list was built entirely around manipulation and exploitation. "A word in your ear" to expose a unit to shooting, free moves from the sentinels and other skullduggery.

Oh, and they were metal Praetorians painted in Boer War colors. Looked really sharp. I sold/traded them for WW II Germans and while it was a very advantageous trade, those guys looked great.

In fact, while I was doing my final Army fitness test in Basic Training, I distracted myself from the discomfort by mentally reviewing my army and contemplating what new units I would buy when I got home.

Wargear.

Seriously, I miss being able to pile a ton of random gubbins onto my HQs. I liked having a ton of choices and being able to give different HQs all manner of different equipment. I liked having the option of being able to skip defensive gear that is now standard (e.g. Shadowfields), or of giving my HQ everything but the kitchen sink. I miss weapons that were actually different and that fulfilled different roles, rather than having four interchangeable power-swords and bugger-all else.

This applies most of all to Dark Eldar but also to my Necrons. Boy do I miss some of the 5th edition builds.

Speaking of 5th edition Necrons, I miss Royal Courts. I loved being able to field a pile of different infantry squads and have each one led by one or two Crypteks or Lords. It wasn't the most effective list but boy was it fun.


For a more recent sadness, I miss 7th edition Corsairs. They were by far my favourite army in 7th and I adored them. Given that by this point Dark Eldar had already started haemorrhaging options, it felt great to have an army that felt like everything I wanted Dark Eldar to be. Suddenly I had a HQ with a ton of options. Suddenly I had oodles of mobility options - including being able to take Jet Packs on every single infantry unit if I felt so inclined. They even had a version of Scourges that actually functioned properly with Heavy weapons. I loved the flavour. I loved the units. I loved the lists I could build without even needing to take the more Craftworld-y vehicles.

And then 8th dropped and GW/FW just couldn't be arsed giving them a new codex, even though the 7th edition one was already so close to 8th's mechanics that it barely needed updating.

I remember playing 3rd edition Orks against Imperial Guard in a absurd game on 4X8 and managing to some how walk way up the table to victory. Table quarter deployments made for a fantastic game.

Playing dark Eldar only a few times and I managed to rout and table a chaos space marine army using some kind of grenades that forced LD checks and failing units had to fall back, save or suck. That stacked with raiders to exploit the cross ire rule and the game was over before I realized I had won!

I remember Dark Angels tac Squad shooting at Necron warriors who were fairly close to a table edge and forced a LD test but they rolled above a 10 and fell back right off the table! My opponent just hung his head and said, It figures.
and lastly I remember chasing some kind of Space marine commander off the table, must have been 4th edition by this point. The kid was being snotty so I "showed him a magic trick". I guess that character had been with a unit and forced to fall back but I stayed in range and it was a days chain of fall backs and off the table he went. I can't recall specifically how that worked now.

Oh, and the famous tractor accident. This kid playing IG against my orks threw his command into my killa Kan wall and after words we said it was a tractor accident in the report back to high command. Cool kid we became good friends and laughed about that game for years.

I remember many good moments for those old editions that were a lot of fun.

I remember nostalgia.

I also remember there was a better quality of nostalgia back in my day ...

I struggle to imagine a setting of w40k, where I am still playing the game, which is worse then the expiriance of GK in 8th ed. It was borderline unfun for years, and when GW did fix it, they first had problems with sending out the PA books, and then covid came, so when GK were fun I didn't even get to play them. Or rather I got to play them for 2 weeks, which was like 3 games.

 vipoid wrote:
Wargear.

Seriously, I miss being able to pile a ton of random gubbins onto my HQs. I liked having a ton of choices and being able to give different HQs all manner of different equipment. I liked having the option of being able to skip defensive gear that is now standard (e.g. Shadowfields), or of giving my HQ everything but the kitchen sink. I miss weapons that were actually different and that fulfilled different roles, rather than having four interchangeable power-swords and bugger-all else.

This applies most of all to Dark Eldar but also to my Necrons. Boy do I miss some of the 5th edition builds.

Speaking of 5th edition Necrons, I miss Royal Courts. I loved being able to field a pile of different infantry squads and have each one led by one or two Crypteks or Lords. It wasn't the most effective list but boy was it fun.


For a more recent sadness, I miss 7th edition Corsairs. They were by far my favourite army in 7th and I adored them. Given that by this point Dark Eldar had already started haemorrhaging options, it felt great to have an army that felt like everything I wanted Dark Eldar to be. Suddenly I had a HQ with a ton of options. Suddenly I had oodles of mobility options - including being able to take Jet Packs on every single infantry unit if I felt so inclined. They even had a version of Scourges that actually functioned properly with Heavy weapons. I loved the flavour. I loved the units. I loved the lists I could build without even needing to take the more Craftworld-y vehicles.

And then 8th dropped and GW/FW just couldn't be arsed giving them a new codex, even though the 7th edition one was already so close to 8th's mechanics that it barely needed updating.

As usual, I will join you in pouring one out for the 7th edition Corsairs. May jetpack troops rest in the infinity circuit along with windrider troops that let their respective armies feel mobile and distinct. Let us remember fondly the vehicle saves that got better based on how quickly your vehicles moved thus creating interesting trade-offs in defense/offense. Let us remember fondly the juicy, flavorful subfaction rules that were large both more interesting and less game breaking than modern chapter tactics (but maybe that's the rose-tinted goggles talking). May GW remember the cleverness of an alternative set of Perils of the Warp rules that made ancient space elves less likely to blow themselves up while also feeling more spooky/nasty than just randomly taking some damage.

The 7th edition corsair rules felt like they were written by someone who liked the faction and was given permission to do something fun with them.

Assault ramps on Landraiders allowing charges from it even after it moved.

I miss 3.5 edition Guard and CA/WD armoured company. Dropping a demolisher pie plate on a unit of terminators was always satisfying. Especially if you could pay 20 points for a scatter dice reroll.

I know this is going to stir some controversy, but I kinda miss aspects of the model/terrain "size" categories and magic cylinder.

Yes, it's a little more abstract, but it allowed people to model figures in cool poses without worrying about "modeling for advantage". Standard infantry size 1, Terminators/Ogryn/Tyranid warriors size 2. They can hide behind terrain at least their size category. Easy to understand, quicker to play.

I started circa '94 shortly after 2nd edition launched. I have fond memories of that era, but I find that I most often reminisce of 5th edition.

I miss when we didn't have 600+ stratagems or 7,000+ bespoke rules. When each unit had a stat line, its wargear, and maybe one or two rules/abilities... and that was it. The game wasn't perfect, but it also wasn't bogged down with rules bloat and just seemed to flow organically. We didn't have to remember 100+ arbitrary limits, or constantly hit pause to explain how 6 or more rules/abilities/stratagems stack to let me do something or hard stop to count & bookkeep mission scoring.

I miss progressive campaigns and the best supplement never played... Planetstrike.

My hope for the future is to see the pendulum swing away from the doldrums of competition and back towards the fascination that drew so many of us into W40K. A simpler game where the models and terrain we lovingly assemble, and paint once again have meaning beyond just what it can do in-game to win.

I do miss my roaming vortex grenades and equipment cards from second.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do miss my roaming vortex grenades and equipment cards from second.

Jones is acting awfully strange, don't you think?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do miss my roaming vortex grenades and equipment cards from second.

Vortex grenades are a personal fav

 Insectum7 wrote:
You'll find a lot of nostalgia for older editions here. 4th was my favorite era, though I started in 2nd and remember it quite fondly as well.

Ditto - started at the beginning of 2nd, which was a chaotic but fun mess. 4th is still my favorite edition; less chaotic than 2nd and more refined than 3rd (I really like the grimdark codexes from this era including 3.5 codexes, the targeting rules utilizing leadership, abstract terrain rules vs. true LOS, and variety of missions with different "levels" introducing more optional rules). Thanks Andy Chambers. 5th wasn't bad but 40k has been on a downward trajectory ever since late 5th IMO.

I miss... everything? The metal dark eldars, the bike archon, the catachan codex, the doom rider; i miss the necron codex of 4th, i miss the real c'tan, i miss the dwarf avatar. I have already mentioned the bike archon? I love the bike archon

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do miss my roaming vortex grenades and equipment cards from second.

"Hah! Penetrating hit!" [Rolls dice] "Yes! turret blown off and lands... [rolls scatter] ON MY WARLORD?!"

20 cadians for £20

Il sentiero arato wrote:
I miss... everything? The metal dark eldars, the bike archon, the catachan codex, the doom rider; i miss the necron codex of 4th, i miss the real c'tan, i miss the dwarf avatar. I have already mentioned the bike archon? I love the bike archon

I too love the bike Archon, especially when the rest of the army is in reserve awaiting the Webway Portal placement and said Archon flies right in front of a Demolisher Cannon T1 and fails that Shadow Field save.

My first game of Rogue Trader in 1990 was my Order of the Phoenix Marines (like Deathwatch, every member had belonged to a different chapter; admission into the order of the phoenix requires that members "Die" only to be reborn into their new chapter) vs a handful of orks with pompadour hairsquigs and rhinestone jumpsuits.

The Elvis orks also had a pick-up truck.

Nothing was better than the days of the 3.5 Chaos and Guard Codices. Yes, my precious Tyranids sucked back then (2nd Ed was far more fun), but Chaos and Guard were just the coolest armies, and I put tons into them.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I do miss my roaming vortex grenades and equipment cards from second.

Vortex grenades are a personal fav

I remember the first time I encountered the "Vortex Detonator" vehicle card. It was at a Thursday Night game at Games Workshop. Guy tried to Vortex a Demolisher. Got a rude shock.

This got me thinking about the virus outbreak card having been "banned" via the WD. I got thinking that the game was 5 turns so did it really need to be banned? Sadly I never pulled it but we may have removed it from the deck. I can't recall. But in a 5 turn game just how much hurt would that even bring. I remember SM's were sealed troops so they were far less likely to be bothered than most anything else. In a mission like take and hold I think that card would make for a very dynamic game, especially if the table was chocked full of terrain. Thoughts on that or any experience with that card?

Deadnight wrote:
20 cadians for £20

When I started a box of 20 guardsmen was $50 AUD. That was from GW directly. They were much less from a discount retailer, from memory, I was paying about $37.50 AUD.

The old Cadian Battleforce box was $150 AUD. Which had 20 guardsmen, 3 heavy weapon teams, a leman russ, and terrain. I was paying about $112.50 AUD from the shop I went to.

Now-a-days they're $77 AUD for 10 guardsmen. So if I wanted to buy 100 guardsmen now, that's $770 AUD from GW or about $616 from a discount retailer. Back then it was $250 AUD from GW and $187.50 from the shop I went to. Which is pretty ridiculous and I would have never started this hobby at todays prices.

Still remember clear as day walking into this 'Games Workshop' store in Sheffield in 1987....

My friend at school had told me they sold 'metal Romans' and stuff (had loads of plastic little soldiers). Back then GW sold all sorts of lines....proper funky fantasy miniatures and all sorts...

Walked in and there was a group playing this space combat battle.

These Green ork things were in this huge/city fortress thing and there were these Blue 'Space Marines' with a red stripe on their helmet advancing.

Watched in awe as a player made his Rocket Launcher guy fire at about 70 inch range at some orks....I was amazed, measuring out the distance and everything!!!

13 YO me was very enthralled.

 warhead01 wrote:
This got me thinking about the virus outbreak card having been "banned" via the WD. I got thinking that the game was 5 turns so did it really need to be banned? Sadly I never pulled it but we may have removed it from the deck. I can't recall. But in a 5 turn game just how much hurt would that even bring. I remember SM's were sealed troops so they were far less likely to be bothered than most anything else. In a mission like take and hold I think that card would make for a very dynamic game, especially if the table was chocked full of terrain. Thoughts on that or any experience with that card?

It has been many, many years for me, but I remember virus outbreak or an assassin (or swooping hawk exarch?) with a virus grenade being devastating (in an unfair way) to Orks and Imperial Guard armies.

I remember getting the RTB01 box for $20 for 30 marines. Which adjusted for inflation is about what you pay for a 10 man box today.

Quality has gone up a bit though…

Started with 2nd (and a bit of RT). So many shenanigans, micromanagement, and crawling overwatch. Picked up again with 4th but the 'golden age' locally was early to mid 5th where the local guard player wasn't good enough to take proper advantage of the book and just about everything else was close enough to even that we'd play mirror matches, army swap tournaments and the like and people would generally feel that their choices rather than their codex mattered the most.

Speed, range, and 'generic-ness' was what did it. You could read the board in a rough paper/scissors/stones kind of way were rewarded for plotting out things turns in advance.

 warhead01 wrote:
This got me thinking about the virus outbreak card having been "banned" via the WD. I got thinking that the game was 5 turns so did it really need to be banned? Sadly I never pulled it but we may have removed it from the deck. I can't recall. But in a 5 turn game just how much hurt would that even bring. I remember SM's were sealed troops so they were far less likely to be bothered than most anything else. In a mission like take and hold I think that card would make for a very dynamic game, especially if the table was chocked full of terrain. Thoughts on that or any experience with that card?

Virus grenades and outbreaks had the potential to end the game by themselves, which is why they were yanked. Space Marines could resist the virus, but orks and IG were notoriously vulnerable.

For Orks it just meant a mandatory 50 point Wargear card "Vaccine Squig". The only army I saw get really hit by a Virus Grenade was Imperial Guard. But it was devastating. probably 50+ dead from a single grenade throw.

 Insectum7 wrote:
For Orks it just meant a mandatory 50 point Wargear card "Vaccine Squig". The only army I saw get really hit by a Virus Grenade was Imperial Guard. But it was devastating. probably 50+ dead from a single grenade throw.

Yeah, it was something you either automatically countered (if you could) or it would just win the game. Very poorly thought out rule.

I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

 morganfreeman wrote:
I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

^1000% agree!!! Fielding your own characters with your own options is much better, and locking builds behind "must-take" special characters is really annoying.

I was once in a tournament where the final 2 armies were both Black Legion led by Abaddon because he was basically a must-take.

I miss Rogue Trader. Or more specifically I miss the friends I had in those days and the games we played. Sucks getting old and cancer's a .

I missed 3rd so much that I went back to it. No more random charge lengths or stratagems for me, sir.

Billy i don't have nostalgia...i live it

Our group plays a combined old hammer based loosely around 5th ed with large helpings of 3rd/4th ed rules. there is no meta there is no churn, there is only war...... and dice and minis and most of all fun times.

P.S. 3.5 oblit weapons-

.twin linked melta gun
.twin linked plasma gun
.missile launcher (frag)
.auto cannon
.heavy bolter
.las cannon
.flamer
.power fist

Strangely enough they are modeled with an assault cannon, but they cannot use it.....maybe it was supposed to be a rotor cannon?

Imperial Guard sergeants with storm bolters.

 aphyon wrote:
Strangely enough they are modeled with an assault cannon, but they cannot use it.....maybe it was supposed to be a rotor cannon?

Probably just the rules and model being out of sync.

Flamer nozzle, bolter nozzle, assault cannon, chainfist, and lightning/power claw - if not for the melta nozzle (instead of a grenade launcher) it would have been the complete set of standard terminator armour weapons, though perhaps they were angling for a combi-bolter look there as the launcher was more of an Imperial thing.

Would have been quite a different unit and perhaps a few less 3e Iron Warriors if they had only 4 heavy slots instead of 7 :p Though early edition assault cannons were brutal.

I think it's more the idea that Oblits grow any type of weapon, so having an assault cannon protruding out looked cool. I don't think the idea was ever to have WYSIWYG Oblits.

Still, I did love the tactical options you got with Oblit weapons, rather than the generic "Jervis'd" homogenised abstracted weapon rules.

Never forget the game where an Oblit switched to the TL-Melta gun for a Farseer my opponent left a little too close. He was not happy about losing his Guide/Fortune machine.

The good old days of Space Marines with Shuriken Catapults, Eldar Guardians with Lasguns and squads of Imperial Commissars. Ork Battlewagons with actual buckets modeled onto them to exploit the unlimited transport rule. The original "Eddy" and "Fury" robots, before they became dreadnought loadouts.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think it's more the idea that Oblits grow any type of weapon, so having an assault cannon protruding out looked cool. I don't think the idea was ever to have WYSIWYG Oblits.

And to be fair the oblits did actually have assault cannons in the 3.0 codex. I forgot how much of a crazy power-up they got going into 3.5.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
This got me thinking about the virus outbreak card having been "banned" via the WD. I got thinking that the game was 5 turns so did it really need to be banned? Sadly I never pulled it but we may have removed it from the deck. I can't recall. But in a 5 turn game just how much hurt would that even bring. I remember SM's were sealed troops so they were far less likely to be bothered than most anything else. In a mission like take and hold I think that card would make for a very dynamic game, especially if the table was chocked full of terrain. Thoughts on that or any experience with that card?

Virus grenades and outbreaks had the potential to end the game by themselves, which is why they were yanked. Space Marines could resist the virus, but orks and IG were notoriously vulnerable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
For Orks it just meant a mandatory 50 point Wargear card "Vaccine Squig". The only army I saw get really hit by a Virus Grenade was Imperial Guard. But it was devastating. probably 50+ dead from a single grenade throw.

Yikes! I really should have gotten off my butt and found those cards. I hadn't expected them to work so fast or really do that much damage. I thought it had just been an over reaction. But I guess 40K got more tame in later editions. I can see how they would give the feels bads. Which wouldn't have bothered me back then because of my one opponent and having never beaten him in a game. I think he was a bit of a dice cheater. That and our terrain situation was garbage.

Terrain was key to a good game, still is, but his house his rules. Not much fun in being pinned down by Dark reapers and then shredded by Warp spiders with no chance of leaving your deployment zone because you're too poor to afford a few vehicles. There were other issues too, 2000 points in 2nd never went very far.

I really miss real Corsairs, 7th Corsairs is the reason why we have detachments and subfactions now. They played extremely well (As in balanced and just worked how it was supposed to). They got some hate for being a FW army, but really it was a fluffy and fun way to play CWE/DE that actually worked unlike DE at the time.

I truly believe 40k will never be as fun for me as Corsairs were.

 warhead01 wrote:


Terrain was key to a good game, still is, but his house his rules. Not much fun in being pinned down by Dark reapers and then shredded by Warp spiders with no chance of leaving your deployment zone because you're too poor to afford a few vehicles. There were other issues too, 2000 points in 2nd never went very far.

A lot of the problems people had with 2nd was that they didn't place enough terrain. A lot of the criticism of the Overwatch rule was based on the fact that the cover was insufficient. If the center of the table is open, you are going to have both sides hunker down and wait for the other one to move, especially if the forces are infantry-centric.

Our FLGS had an excellent collection of terrain, much of it donated by the players. I gave all my first-gen terrain to the store as my modeling skills improved. They also had several sets of the cardboard buildings from Necromunda and the campaign packs.

So there's another nostalgia item - multi-story cardboard buildings from GW that you could rearrange as needed. They looked cool, and they were modular. I'm still kind of pissed that I loaned a friend my set so he'd have more terrain at his place and when he got out of the hobby, he gave them to the store. No! That was a loan!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 morganfreeman wrote:
I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

Well, special characters used to be conditional. The books actually said "if your opponent agrees, you can take..."

I miss those mutual consent requirements for certain rules.

I enjoyed 3rd Ed. One of the highlights for me was that Abaddon had one single attack with Drachnyen and pretty much if it hit, it killed the model it hit, no saves etc.

I've played since 3rd edition. There are certainly elements of every edition I can look back on fondly, but I wouldn't go back and play any of them. Definitely don't miss the Vehicle Damage table, and endlessly 'shaking' or 'stunning' the same tank over and over again, or all the arguments on the direction the arrow was pointing on scatter dice.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I know this is going to stir some controversy, but I kinda miss aspects of the model/terrain "size" categories and magic cylinder.

Yes, it's a little more abstract, but it allowed people to model figures in cool poses without worrying about "modeling for advantage". Standard infantry size 1, Terminators/Ogryn/Tyranid warriors size 2. They can hide behind terrain at least their size category. Easy to understand, quicker to play.

I remember playing with this system, I thought it worked well.

If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

Completely true. We still use scatter dice and templates without any issue. When we did have problems it was because 'that guy' was playing at the time. If you played and these things were always an issue, there's a good chance you are 'that guy'.

 amanita wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

Completely true. We still use scatter dice and templates without any issue. When we did have problems it was because 'that guy' was playing at the time. If you played and these things were always an issue, there's a good chance you are 'that guy'.

Just paint one of the "rays" on the blast marker, line that one up with the arrow and then move it.

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

In my experience, it wasn't so much that people were actually arguing about it. It was more that you and your opponent probably had slightly different ideas of where the proper place to scatter was, and you were both too polite to make a big deal about it, but every time the blast hit a couple more of your models than you personally thought it should have, it rankled just a bit. So in my case, at least, the benefit of leaving behind scatter dice is that I don't have those little twinges of annoyance when I opt not to squabble about how many dudes my opponent "should" be hitting.

That said, I did once have a doubles game where one of my opponents was getting increasingly flustered and argumentative about my team's scatters. I ended up just telling him to tell me where he thought my deepstrikers were supposed to land so we could skip the part where he gets cranky about it. He looked very embarrassed and was much less argumentative for the rest of the game. He was a nice enough guy on the whole and not trying to be "that guy," but an honest difference in interpretation could lead to bad feelings, as seen in this anecdote.

Like I said, the only time we had issues with scatter was when it was a powergamer/cheater. Any other time we rolled the die right next to the template and aligned from there. No issues with any reasonable players.



Maybe the issue wasn't the rules but that we weren't a bunch of WAAC feltchers.

Aaah. Back when Krieg was its own army... I miss it.

And AP 3 Hellguns, I always thought that was pretty great for Stormtroopers, a short range, low Str weapon, but in return, it had excellent AP and was carried by models who -could- drop very close to their targets and take full advantage of what they carried. I think it was a pretty unique combo, and much superior than the boring 24'' Ap 5 version of pre-5th ed and the current version of 9th.

Just Tony wrote:Like I said, the only time we had issues with scatter was when it was a powergamer/cheater. Any other time we rolled the die right next to the template and aligned from there. No issues with any reasonable players.



Maybe the issue wasn't the rules but that we weren't a bunch of WAAC feltchers.

We never had any real issue with it, since we are fun gamers if there is every any "conflict" i always let the other player decide how many dudes are under a template or place the scatter.

Bobthehero wrote:Aaah. Back when Krieg was its own army... I miss it.

And AP 3 Hellguns, I always thought that was pretty great for Stormtroopers, a short range, low Str weapon, but in return, it had excellent AP and was carried by models who -could- drop very close to their targets and take full advantage of what they carried. I think it was a pretty unique combo, and much superior than the boring 24'' Ap 5 version of pre-5th ed and the current version of 9th.

Our krieg player still uses his FW book from 7th ed for our hybrid 5th ed games. So, they are still very real to us as well.

The Krieg's 5th Ed list has more options. I'd use that one for an hybrid game

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

Don't forget armour facing.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

Don't forget armour facing.

How do you mean? Nobody ever argued about armor facings. It was far too easy to have a 90 degree template and a laser pointer to sort all that out.


As far as armor facings and damage rolls? That's one of the many factors that made me go back to 3rd. And we also could charge out of any point of the vehicle.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
If there were excessive nitpicking arguments over the direction of the scatter dice the problem wasn't the game...

Don't forget armour facing.

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

 Bobthehero wrote:
I think it was a pretty unique combo, and much superior than the boring 24'' Ap 5 version of pre-5th ed

Even though they were watered down from the guard book the 3e WH/DH stormtroopers were the height of 'boring but practical', though somewhat eclipsed by the 5e veterans. There was a short stretch in 5th where you could out-parking lot the guard(albeit without all the long ranged firepower) and build a 6' wall of meltagun-packed rhinos at 1500pts...

It was not a practical list, but it was an amusing deployment phase.

I'm still trying to figure out how this thread is much different from the "All Things Old Editions" thread half-way down the page.

 Platuan4th wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how this thread is much different from the "All Things Old Editions" thread half-way down the page.

Don't like it? Don't engage.

 Platuan4th wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out how this thread is much different from the "All Things Old Editions" thread half-way down the page.

Not much, maybe the OP didn't notice that one, but had similar thoughts.

All about 2nd Edition.

It was glorious. A mess, but a glorious one.

Tanks didn’t simply get wrecked. Turrets were blown off, and in my experience had an unerring accuracy for landing on and squishing someone important. Sometimes, it was even an enemy model getting squished!

Flamers were useful, and would properly set folk on fire, sending them scurrying off.

Just….happy, halcyon days. This opinion is also heavily coloured by the fact it was my pre-stresses of adulthood days. Those happy and often awkward years where you’re no longer a boy, but not quite a man.

On a more melancholic note, I miss the childish wonder I experienced when encountering certain kits. When I started this hobby in primary school the only source of models was the local toy shop and travelling to the nearby GWs was a huge and rare undertaking. The shop stocked 40k, Fantasy and LoTR on a rather random basis, no real pattern to what stock they'd receive every couple of weeks.

I remember I'd saved my money to get the Codex, and Terminators always seemed a bit mythical to me, these invulnerable walking tanks that I've heard plenty about but never seen in the flesh. Well the day I went to the shop and saw they had the plastic box for £20, I couldn't believe it. At the time, it was the holy grail of my army. Same with the Land Raider, my first one was a Crusader and that seemed even rarer at the time.

Now as I age I don't get that anymore. The fact that I can just look online and a couple of clicks later I've bought it, does make me rather sad at times.

Inevitable consequence of growing older I’m afraid.

As an occasional toy collector, I often see photos like this one.



And it hits me right in the nostalgias every single time. That was part of my childhood. Not just the visual spectacle, but because getting a New Toy was a treat outside of Birthday and Christmas. It meant time with my Grandparents, and getting spoiled a bit. It meant weeks of saving up my pocket money, and getting to pick something for myself.

Now? I’m a working adult with a decent income. I’m not rich nor wealthy, but I am comfortable, certainly to the point where I can buy more or less what I want, within reason. Still have to budget, but don’t have to belt tighten.

Like my nostalgia for 2nd Ed, it’s as much the memory of the situation and period in my life as the actual game itself.

For 40K and GW, it’s never quite the same once you have your own stable income, as you gain a freedom to buy whatever you want (again within reason. I’m not talking a new army a month or owt). Compared to having to save up for say, a box of Assault Marines it’s a different experience. Better in some ways, lesser in others.

We can sort of replicate it. For Heresy, I was drawn to an Ironwing force, with lots of Predators. This month came not only Black Friday, but a significant Overtime payment on my wage. Managed to bag 3 Support Predators from Element Games for £26 each. That experience is a pleasing mix of the two. Bargain on something I didn’t think I’d be able to afford this year, funded by money I’d worked hard for. So that was a pleasing mix of two experiences.

Yeah absolutely get where you guys are coming from. Back when I first started collecting Warhammer - it was the early 90s, I was maybe 13-14 years old, and the closest place I was aware of that sold it was the original Games Workshop store in Hammersmith. That was an absolute Aladdin's-Cave of awesome to a geeky young me. Not felt the same since - I think it's more down to that first hit of finding this new amazing thing you didn't know existed, and just being blown away by the possibilities. Once that is out of the box it doesn't go back in again.

Also, I don’t know if this applies to anyone else, but those early days forged friendships that last to this day.

My best mate and I bonded over GW stuff. And just this year I upped sticks and moved home so we can hang out more often, amongst other reasons.

Pretty much everyone else I know, especially those I consider Proper Friends and not just acquaintances are through mutual love of GW stuffs.

I’d even venture that as GW appeals to Nerdy Kids, some of us may have found safe refuge with likeminded nerds, finding a place to belong we just didn’t in school. Especially in the GW Store for me.

On the subject of stuff not directly related to gameplay... I miss being able to read codex' before I bought them.

I specifically remember starting my second army, nids, in large part because I spent 20 minutes going through their codex at the GW store and thought it looked like awesome fun. Being able to look at the army itself, the units and special rules it had, was great for getting the juices flowing and "picturing it" before you'd get it. I think it helped sales.

As a former till monkey? Open Copies were a double edged sword.

There of course for just as you said, free perusal and a form of advertising. Also useful in helping a mark. I mean customer, customer, not mark, ahem, decide between say, a Lascannon or Heavy Plasma Gun whilst away from their own book.

But. They often became tatty and knackered, as sticky fingered oiks would turn up to games, just expecting to use Open Copies rather than bring their own. And if that one was in use, the next Sticky Fingered Oik would get their dabs all over the next copy of the shelf, which would have to be Known Loss’d.

I miss the days when the people who played 40k acknowledged that the game wasn't a paragon of perfect balance and you could do things other than play 100% as-written perfect tournament-standard missions with tournament-standard terrain on tournament-standard tables and tournament-standard armies.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I miss the days when the people who played 40k acknowledged that the game wasn't a paragon of perfect balance and you could do things other than play 100% as-written perfect tournament-standard missions with tournament-standard terrain on tournament-standard tables and tournament-standard armies.

Yeah, expecting clear rules writing was so much worse and I loved rolling off to solve disputes.

 Valkyrie wrote:
On a more melancholic note, I miss the childish wonder I experienced when encountering certain kits. When I started this hobby in primary school the only source of models was the local toy shop and travelling to the nearby GWs was a huge and rare undertaking. The shop stocked 40k, Fantasy and LoTR on a rather random basis, no real pattern to what stock they'd receive every couple of weeks.

I remember I'd saved my money to get the Codex, and Terminators always seemed a bit mythical to me, these invulnerable walking tanks that I've heard plenty about but never seen in the flesh. Well the day I went to the shop and saw they had the plastic box for £20, I couldn't believe it. At the time, it was the holy grail of my army. Same with the Land Raider, my first one was a Crusader and that seemed even rarer at the time.

Now as I age I don't get that anymore. The fact that I can just look online and a couple of clicks later I've bought it, does make me rather sad at times.

Got that same first hit with Terminators back when I joined this hobby in 2nd ed. Remember going into my local GW for the first time (after being sent there by a lady from Woolworth's looking for models for a game called Havok) and seeing the blister pack labelled "Chaos space marine Terminator with heavy flamer" and wondering what on earth that word salad in front of me meant, like you knew all of the individual words, but what was this? Left with a starter paint set and a metal Terminator sergeant, as I really loved Termies, and still do to this day.

I can say though, what really hit me in the childlike wonder bit was a store in Burton called Spirit Games (that sadly has gone online only post covid) that was in a listed building and had been there for literal decades. It was full to the brim of the most random stuff in wargaming you could think of, and an entire wall of Reaper minis. You could look at that wall for hours, poring over the blister packs, or come in armed with the product codes from Reaper's site to help you navigate it (it was all in code order). That store was like my idea of heaven for just finding random models you never knew you needed.

For me, it was discovering a world beyond Hero Quest and Space Crusade (Oi, Hasbro. Where’s me new Space Crusade??).

From there, finding out Edinburgh had an entire shop just selling those little bits of wonder.

Tiny. Mind. Blown. Like…right out. Up the nearest tree and straight on to morning Tiny Mind Blown.

Add in the visual anarchy of very early 40K? And that was that. Been hooked ever since. Same with 2000AD, GW’s anarchic stablemate. Not something my parents ever bought me like, but every time I got a Noggin Chop at Chainsaw Harry’s? He had the then latest issue (and many, many back issues!) for those in the queue to read. And read I did.

Love me my 40K and 2000AD!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, I don’t know if this applies to anyone else, but those early days forged friendships that last to this day.

My oldest friend got me into the game. First time I went to his house - we were 9 years old - he was painting Epic scale Eldar Falcons.

Eventually we decided to get into 40k proper.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I miss the days when the people who played 40k acknowledged that the game wasn't a paragon of perfect balance and you could do things other than play 100% as-written perfect tournament-standard missions with tournament-standard terrain on tournament-standard tables and tournament-standard armies.

Yeah, expecting clear rules writing was so much worse and I loved rolling off to solve disputes.

I think AnomanderRake's point was that it was easier to play something besides lame, boring tournament . Every. . Game.

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I miss the days when the people who played 40k acknowledged that the game wasn't a paragon of perfect balance and you could do things other than play 100% as-written perfect tournament-standard missions with tournament-standard terrain on tournament-standard tables and tournament-standard armies.

Yeah, expecting clear rules writing was so much worse and I loved rolling off to solve disputes.

I think AnomanderRake's point was that it was easier to play something besides lame, boring tournament . Every. . Game.

Also that I'd genuinely prefer vague rules writing and rolling off to solve disputes to being blown off the table in two turns and being told "yeah, you need to buy a whole new army, all this is terrible" every game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I miss the days when the people who played 40k acknowledged that the game wasn't a paragon of perfect balance and you could do things other than play 100% as-written perfect tournament-standard missions with tournament-standard terrain on tournament-standard tables and tournament-standard armies.

I always considered the game to be purposely unbalanced because it was made for epic battles in the 40K universe I.E. thematic. your dudes should behave like they would in the universe. every army had a weakness, and it was your skill as the general to play to your strengths with this in mind.

That is why most of the best codexes/army lists were from 3rd and 4th as far as thematic armies go in accordance with the setting as they finalized it by 3rd ed.

Upvotes Spirit Games. Miss getting hopelessly distracted in there.

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

‘Member partials with templates? Oooh, I ‘member!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

‘Member partials with templates? Oooh, I ‘member!

Outside of a couple of TFGs you simply didn't see that kind of thing in the wild. Hell, I had a player who started in 6th or 7th become my regular 3rd Ed. opponent and we never once had a disagreement over partials, armor facings, or the template drift.

They did get better over time. I for one don’t particularly miss them in 40K. But man, when arguments were had about the positioning and who was and wasn’t clipped or 50%+ covered dragged out.

 aphyon wrote:

I always considered the game to be purposely unbalanced because it was made for epic battles in the 40K universe I.E. thematic. your dudes should behave like they would in the universe. every army had a weakness, and it was your skill as the general to play to your strengths with this in mind.

The rulebook clearly stated that creating a good game was a cooperative effort on the part of the players and most if not all the special units required your opponent's consent to use them.

Terrain was also something that was supposed to be collaborative. The concept of one player sets the terrain, the other gets to choose his starting board edge worked.

Starting in 3rd, that went away as GW began rendering everything as a practice for tournament play and there was a noted shift in the community to "tournament test list" armies. I remember people kvetching about various unbalanced lists that made for terribly dull game play and the response wasn't "What a jerk" but "Well, in tournament play, they'll pay a price for that."

No! I want to play a good game today, and "back in the day," that's what people were focused on, not using pick-up games as a scrimmage for the next grand tournament.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The rulebook clearly stated that creating a good game was a cooperative effort on the part of the players and most if not all the special units required your opponent's consent to use them.

I remember when an impartial game master was the assumption of how to play.

I have 100 Praetorian IG sitting on my Dining room table because of the new codex. Now I just need and Ork opponent

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

This happens when immature people play tabletop games. Better for those types to spend their time with something else.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

This happens when immature people play tabletop games. Better for those types to spend their time with something else.

I've found that agaist those players I can just try extra hard avoid those potential conflicts. Like make extra sure my maneuvering results in clear angle distinctions, or just math out proof that they're moving their models a little too fast to be legal. And then after you win they don't want to play you anymore. Problem solved!

Tbh my fix is usually just try and play well adjusted people lol. Like when I first got into the game with a couple friends as 11 year olds we’d do this constantly, but now at 19, I’m not dealing with a 25+ year old who acts like I did as a 6th grader…

The sad reality is that playing the guy who argued incessantly about scatter dice, template partials and armour facings sucks just as much today as it did back then.

Even an ironclad ruleset has too many ambiguities you won't be able to resolve decisively while you're at the table. They'll always be something else to argue about, don't you worry.

 Ventus wrote:
The sad reality is that playing the guy who argued incessantly about scatter dice, template partials and armour facings sucks just as much today as it did back then.

Even an ironclad ruleset has too many ambiguities you won't be able to resolve decisively while you're at the table. They'll always be something else to argue about, don't you worry.

A good opponent is always important, but GW acquired an unfortunate habit of playing rules lawyer against themselves. I recall back in 3rd, the orks could put booster rockets on their vehicles that added d6 inches to the move. To use them, the ork player declared how far it was going to move, and then rolled for the rockets.

Some players took the obvious cheat of declaring their movement to be zero and then firing the rockets, which meant the vehicle could fire all weapons as if stationary, but still move! Instead of stomping on the obvious absurdity of this, GW dug into their books and came up with a ruling that up to 3 inches could be "free" but more than that counted as moving.

(Of course, if you painted the model red, it was d6+1, but I digress.)

So yes, having a reasonable person to play with is important, but when the designers are telling you how to exploit their rules, it gets to be tough sledding.

The 4th ed book has a similar rule but only for the storm boyz they move 12" +1d6 the number you roll if it comes up a 1 then one of the packs blows up killing a boy. silly and very orky indeed!

The rule of thumb for our group when a questionable rule interpretation comes up, is that if you feel it gives you an unfair advantage don't use it that way. We go back to the old 3rd/4th ed guidelines of "the game should be fun for both players". Winning or losing matters much less for most people as long as both players had a good game. the close calls are some of the best games.

After 20+ years just with 40K you inevitably run into those types of players who make themselves un-welcome because of their behavior or attitude.

We had one very active tournament scene player who was caught blatantly cheating multiple times in different game systems, as well as abusing the store prize support, along with skewing tournaments he was involved in operating for his friend group.

Needless to say, not only is he not welcome by the gamers at our store he also alienated the store owner.

No community needs toxic players like that.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

This happens when immature people play tabletop games. Better for those types to spend their time with something else.

I've found that many of them will eventually grow out of it.
Those that do? They can play with the rest of us & have fun.
Those who don't? They can go play on those tables over there & argue with each other as long as they like.

 Strg Alt wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

I didin't it is fantastic and a great part of the game, should have never been removed.....but then 8th ed on isn't really 40K it is some kind of quasi MTG hybrid game with miniatures not really a war game anymore.

People absolutely argued about armour facing.

“Oh, you’re 2 degrees off that’s still the 14 front armour.”
‘No, that’s clearly the side armour.’
“It’s definitely the front, you draw the 90 degree line from here.”
‘Should I get my protractor out?’
“How about we roll off? 1-3 is side, 4-6 is front.”

It got even worse when more and more factions had vehicles that weren’t literal boxes on tracks.

This happens when immature people play tabletop games. Better for those types to spend their time with something else.

It's immature to determine how a vehicle is going to be shot? So you just let your opponent decide even if it's not correct?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

It's immature to determine how a vehicle is going to be shot? So you just let your opponent decide even if it's not correct?

A lot of disputes can be resolved before the fact by asking questions at setup and as the game unfolds. For example, if a vehicle isn't boxy, ask the opponent which angles count as flank. I've dealt with rules lawyers and if you engage from the get-go on stuff like that, things go a lot smoother.

"So, I see you've placed your vehicle. Where do you consider the flanks to be? Where would one need to be to get the rear armor?"

I admit that there is more than a little bit of gamesmanship in these questions because your opponent will immediately begin to wonder how you could possibly move forces into position to achieve those angles, but that's all part of the psychology of the game.

Just in case the mods kill the image...

https://www.amazon.com/Military-Protractor-for-Land-Navigation/dp/B0865TT893/ref=asc_df_B0865TT893/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=459536722279&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=5788565695415419932&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1017161&hvtargid=pla-961356158568&psc=1


This is an easy template tool to establish angles and facings during gaming. It is also one of DOZENS of items that can easily establish angles. We used to have an 8 pointed star that had the X and Y axes painted green with the diagonal axes painted red. Line up and laser point from there.


This is such a non-issue. Anyone arguing that this doesn't have an easy fix is simply trying to game the game or create false problems to denounce the way armor was originally handled.

It isn't an issue unless you want to make it one.

I still play 40K with armor values and we never have arguments about facing.

Nearly every miniature wargame out there with a bit of simulation have armor facing with very few exceptions.

.BattleTech, warmachine, flames of war etc...

There are a few exceptions like infinity and DUST that have a fixed armor value or armor class with a wound system. GW is the only one i know of that "streamlined" 40K effectively making vehicles monstrous creatures with toughness and wounds that could be wounded by every weapon in the game.

For some it's less about a legitimate problem with the rule and more about a strawman to shame people who LIKE the rule. Been that way for a while. Same place the "2D6 inch consolidation" fallacy from 3rd Ed. denouncers comes from...

Glorious days.

 aphyon wrote:
It isn't an issue unless you want to make it one.

I still play 40K with armor values and we never have arguments about facing.

Yes, there were points where the rules got bent and broken, but vehicle facing wasn't one of them in my experience.

I also agree that there are some oddball urban legends about older versions of the game that don't stand up to scrutiny. On another forum, we had a 2nd ed. thread and people wandered in trashing it by claiming things that simply weren't true. If you go to the 2nd ed. post linked in my sig, much of the rules "fixes" are simply clarifications of things people got wrong.

To be sure, some of those trashing it were suspected GW staff trying to get people to play the current edition. In the backwash of 3rd as it was moving to 4th, there was a movement to go 'retro' (which I did), and so GW openly disparaged 2nd as unplayable. It was fascinating to watch.

 morganfreeman wrote:
I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

Exactly this. Seeing Abaddon in every single Chaos list is pretty boring at this stage. Named characters are cool but our group always preferred making your own character and developing their own history and stories and thats how we always played. I think the only time when we agreed to use special characters was when the Armaggeddon codex came out.

I have only ever run 3 named characters in all the 8 armies i built for 40K in normal scale.

.master of the ravenwing land speeder (3.5 mini dex...technically he didn't have a name, but it was a unique vehicle).
.Azrael that i still use with my general dark angels leading a deathwing command squad
.brey'arth ashmantle dreadnought character for the salamanders.....cause he is a dreadnought.

the rest have all been my own creation.

I ran and still run Captain Cortez whenever I'm allowed.

Memnoch wrote:


Exactly this. Seeing Abaddon in every single Chaos list is pretty boring at this stage. Named characters are cool but our group always preferred making your own character and developing their own history and stories and thats how we always played. I think the only time when we agreed to use special characters was when the Armaggeddon codex came out.

I don't own any of the special figures and can't recall ever using them in a game. I always thought of them as examples of how a character should be built with some unique features.

I do have some "special characters" but they are unique to me. For example, the commander of the Third Company is Captain Whirlingdeath and his brother, Father Francis Whirlingdeath, is the Chaplain.

The fun of having an open-ended game like 40k (as opposed to historicals) is the ability to have a particular figure be a particular character. Buying one off the shelf seems lazy and boring.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I don't own any of the special figures and can't recall ever using them in a game. I always thought of them as examples of how a character should be built with some unique features.

They could be somewhat critical 'back in the day' for certain factions - Belial-wing and Sammael-wing for example were the only way to field those particular units as troops for Dark Angels, whereas other books allowed you to use generic replacements.

A.T. wrote:
They could be somewhat critical 'back in the day' for certain factions - Belial-wing and Sammael-wing for example were the only way to field those particular units as troops for Dark Angels, whereas other books allowed you to use generic replacements.

Ah, that was another reason. The only armies I collected in "real time" were Ultramarines and I just started Imperial Guard when 3rd came out. Ultramarines were about as bland as they come, which I liked.

Characters are generally optimized for melee and I ran very shooty armies, so the points other people put into characters gave me more tactical squads, razorbacks and dreadnoughts.

Since going back to 2nd (and having collected every army of that edition), I now use tooled-up characters, but they have their own backstories going back 20 years at this point. Much more fun than having the 500th incarnation of Ahriman or something.

 aphyon wrote:
master of the ravenwing land speeder (3.5 mini dex...technically he didn't have a name, but it was a unique vehicle).

Technically, he did have a name if you read the fluff in the book(it was Gideon and the model was specifically meant to represent him), but GW being GW in 3rd, they mentioned at some point they didn't name the unit entry so you could rep any past or future Master of the Ravenwing.

I was able to stay away from special characters until 5th or the ed, I think. In 4th ed every Captain had Rites of Battle, which gave the Captain's Ld to every friendly Marine on the table. In 5th for some reason they dropped that and the only model to get it was UM Sicarius. So he became more tempting. But 6th ed was the real clincher, as Warlor Traits became random(!). God I hated that. Taking a named character meant that your Warlord Trait was fixed. So Sicarius showed up very game for a few years.

As soon as 8th hit though, back to ye olde generic CaptainGuy.

A.T. wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I don't own any of the special figures and can't recall ever using them in a game. I always thought of them as examples of how a character should be built with some unique features.

They could be somewhat critical 'back in the day' for certain factions - Belial-wing and Sammael-wing for example were the only way to field those particular units as troops for Dark Angels, whereas other books allowed you to use generic replacements.

It was much nicer in the 3.5 codex. any member of the inner circle could lead a deathwing army. so you got all the named characters as well as your generic captains, chaplains, and librarians. there was no limited named character unlock.

And even better DW terminator squads could be 10 strong.

 Just Tony wrote:

This is such a non-issue. Anyone arguing that this doesn't have an easy fix is simply trying to game the game or create false problems to denounce the way armor was originally handled.

I agree that armour facing was nowhere near the top of the pile of problematic rules, and was quite easily fixable if noone was a dick about it.

Now, if you look back at the different FAQ articles of the time, it's easy to see which areas of the general rule landscape were problematic and where people either found it difficult to follow the rules or the rules had actual ambiguities:

- template placement and other template-related stuff
- unit cohesion, especially combined with line-of-sight or cover issues, disembarking etc.
- line-of-sight shenanigans
- close combat, especially how attacks/kills 'spilled over', who could attack whom and so on

Tsagualsa wrote:
Now, if you look back at the different FAQ articles of the time, it's easy to see which areas of the general rule landscape were problematic and where people either found it difficult to follow the rules or the rules had actual ambiguities:

- template placement and other template-related stuff
- unit cohesion, especially combined with line-of-sight or cover issues, disembarking etc.
- line-of-sight shenanigans
- close combat, especially how attacks/kills 'spilled over', who could attack whom and so on

True, and a lot of that had to do with attempts to great abstractions that just didn't work well in a figure-to-figure system. I think GW had to decide if they were going to go with symbolic miniatures or literal ones, and their failure to pick and option and stick with it created most of their problems (the rest being army/unit balance).

Playing Orkz back in 5th and 6th, and Sweeping Advances were the bane of my existence.

Those damn Marines.

I could wax nostalgia for hours about flamer templates, blast markers, scatter dice, armour facings, etc., but in the end, the game is better without them.

My experience is that, for previous editions, most issues with such things only arose from gakkers who would get salty when they couldn't steamroll you or completive players who took things way to fething serious. I guess some things just never change.

Memnoch wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

Exactly this. Seeing Abaddon in every single Chaos list is pretty boring at this stage. Named characters are cool but our group always preferred making your own character and developing their own history and stories and thats how we always played. I think the only time when we agreed to use special characters was when the Armaggeddon codex came out.

Is that not the fault of GW for writing rules to make a character become autoinclude?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Memnoch wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:
I remember back when you'd never see special characters. They had point limitations (usually "army must be over X number of points, but a few were under) to keep them out of most games, and while they were often-times good a codex wasn't designed around taking them.

It's super annoying how Abaddon, Girly-Man, Ghazzy, and any number of super-duper-uber-extra-special characters seem to be on every battlefield where their respective army shows up.

Exactly this. Seeing Abaddon in every single Chaos list is pretty boring at this stage. Named characters are cool but our group always preferred making your own character and developing their own history and stories and thats how we always played. I think the only time when we agreed to use special characters was when the Armaggeddon codex came out.

Is that not the fault of GW for writing rules to make a character become autoinclude?

Clearly it's the fault of the customer/players for liking to play with the cool models they've bought & spent all that time painting.
How dare they!

ccs wrote:

Clearly it's the fault of the customer/players for liking to play with the cool models they've bought & spent all that time painting.
How dare they!

But of course that's not what people were saying, was it? People who had a play style in one edition were subsequently compelled to take a special character in order to maintain it. When the next edition rolled around and they didn't, they stopped using them.

I mean, let's be honest: GW realized that instead of just catering to the artisanal crowd and fluff addicts, they could push special characters out into the mainstream by centering key game mechanics on them to the point that taking a specific army type required a special character to function well.

That's pretty lame.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:

Clearly it's the fault of the customer/players for liking to play with the cool models they've bought & spent all that time painting.
How dare they!

But of course that's not what people were saying, was it? People who had a play style in one edition were subsequently compelled to take a special character in order to maintain it. When the next edition rolled around and they didn't, they stopped using them.

I mean, let's be honest: GW realized that instead of just catering to the artisanal crowd and fluff addicts, they could push special characters out into the mainstream by centering key game mechanics on them to the point that taking a specific army type required a special character to function well.

That's pretty lame.

How dare GW write rules that inspire one to buy/use <model>!
But it's still the fault of the players for choosing to play with whatever it is. They could choose something else....
Oh, wait, no it's not. Not in either case. GWs not at fault for writing rules to make sales. And the other guy isn't under any generic obligation to use/not use some unit. (maybe in some sort of league or campaign, but not for pick up games or especially tournaments)

In all seriousness though? It's just someone complaining about how others build their armies. If it wasn't some named character they'd just be complaining about always seeing _____.

ccs wrote:


In all seriousness though? It's just someone complaining about how others build their armies. If it wasn't some named character they'd just be complaining about always seeing _____.

No, it's players who enjoyed a certain style of play who now had to pay a "GW tax" to keep the same style of play.

GW isn't "enticing" people, it's abusing its market position to squeeze out some extra sales.

"Gosh, I notice these particular traits are really popular."

"Splendid! Let's make players who like those traits have to buy a premium-priced figure to use them!"

I mean, credit where it is due. GW actually figured out how to monetize miniatures army selection. It's basically turning white metal castings into loot boxes.

Which was another reason why I stopped playing the "current edition."

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

ccs wrote:


In all seriousness though? It's just someone complaining about how others build their armies. If it wasn't some named character they'd just be complaining about always seeing _____.

No, it's players who enjoyed a certain style of play who now had to pay a "GW tax" to keep the same style of play.

GW isn't "enticing" people, it's abusing its market position to squeeze out some extra sales.

"Gosh, I notice these particular traits are really popular."

"Splendid! Let's make players who like those traits have to buy a premium-priced figure to use them!"

I mean, credit where it is due. GW actually figured out how to monetize miniatures army selection. It's basically turning white metal castings into loot boxes.

Which was another reason why I stopped playing the "current edition."

You'd have a point at all if it weren't for the fact many generic characters are better than the named counterparts and you weren't just cherrypicking the few that were amazing.

In a doomed attempt to steer us back to the point of the thread: waxing nostalgia

I miss the potential for chaos that blast templates brought to the table. It made for some interesting "you'll never believe this one time" story potential. I also miss the old moral failure where you'd run back towards your edge. I know there are ways to abuse both and that templates could lead to frustrating arguments, but these things just made the game feel a bit more physical for me...less abstracted...and I miss that.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
In a doomed attempt to steer us back to the point of the thread: waxing nostalgia

I miss the potential for chaos that blast templates brought to the table. It made for some interesting "you'll never believe this one time" story potential. I also miss the old moral failure where you'd run back towards your edge. I know there are ways to abuse both and that templates could lead to frustrating arguments, but these things just made the game feel a bit more physical for me...less abstracted...and I miss that.

Ah, so many stories.

My favorite is a lop-sided fight between Space Marines and Tyranids. It went totally sideways for the marines, and instead of fighting to win, the marine player was just hoping to avoid being completely wiped out.

On the last turn, his last terminator was surrounded by four genestealers. To ensure suitable overkill, the Tyranid player had his hive tyrant also fire the venom cannon into the melee.

It missed, scattering onto the genestealers, and the linked template described a perfect circle, wiping out all four genestealers leaving the marine unscathed. The look on the Tyranid player's face....priceless.

 oni wrote:
I could wax nostalgia for hours about flamer templates, blast markers, scatter dice, armour facings, etc., but in the end, the game is better without them.

I still think flamer templates were fun...

If anything, I'll argue for flamer templates. They are my favorite part about Infinity, and old 40k.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You'd have a point at all if it weren't for the fact many generic characters are better than the named counterparts and you weren't just cherrypicking the few that were amazing.

You're missing the point. There was a very specific period in which your army was determined by the special character leading it. Marines were the worst hit. Surprisingly, the paradigm shifted before it hit Chaos, so we never needed Lucius to play Emperor's Children or Ahriman to play 1kSons, but for a time the only way to play Salamanders with Salamander rules was with Vulkan, ditto for Raven Guard and Shrike, Imp Fists and Lysander, Crim Fists and Kantor, and so on.

It was a really gakky, however brief, part of 40k's design.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If anything, I'll argue for flamer templates. They are my favorite part about Infinity, and old 40k.

The templates were useful because they allowed troops to flush out enemies in heavy cover that otherwise couldn't be engaged as point targets.

The IG in particular had issues hitting models in hard cover. The solution? Equip a command squad with flamers and use them to flush out the bunker/position. You know, like in real life.

Obviously, I still play 2nd and even when it was current, we never had much of a problem with templates. In my posts on 2nd ed. (which sadly you can't see because the site has crashed I note that a careful reading of 2nd rules kept template abuse to a minimum. Basically, the center of the template isn't placed on a unit, but on a model. All shooting in 2nd was about individual models (closest or easiest target). Thus, templates (like all other shooting) flowed from front to back.

Things like flamers had more latitude, but also less room for abuse. Basically, they were fun and they worked.

Flamer templates had the major advantage over blasts by not needing to worry/argue about scatter. Place the narrow end next to the guy with gun and sweep it around to see how many guys you could hit. Quick, simple, and fun.

 Nevelon wrote:
Flamer templates had the major advantage over blasts by not needing to worry/argue about scatter. Place the narrow end next to the guy with gun and sweep it around to see how many guys you could hit. Quick, simple, and fun.

Plus, they did extra damage when hitting models in confined spaces.

Yeah and the d3 or d6 auto hits they went to in 8th+ really did not represent how many models you could possibly hit. last week a friend wanted to see how many models you could hit with a large blast if they were all grouped up and he had over 20 models on standard bases touching the template.

I remember the flamer template hitting something like 13 in one game because they were grouped up in cover.

I wasn't playing at the start of 8th, but weren't flamers also excellent anti-aircraft weapons because GW didn't think through the whole "auto-hit" thing?

Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

On Flamers?

Original 2nd Ed Hellhound or GTFO.

Place the Heavy Flamer Template as normal (pointy end in touch with the Barrel). Then roll an Artillery Dice, moving the template forward according to the result. Everything the template touches is hit.

Any unit hit, regardless of casualties, had to take a Break Test because Super Burny. And every vehicle suffered some damage as the sheer heat cooked the crew.

A bloody nasty weapon!

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

 aphyon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Well if you told ahead of time...

Are you surprised if opponent brings up anti horde weapons if you tell you'll bring 300 gaunt list?

Duh. Look at the mirror

I never tell my lists in advance unless I know opponent isn't list tailoring jerk.

Just FYI flyers weren't opponent approval requirement in 7th. So that's squarely on you.

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation. The way a lot of the flyers in 40k behave, i.e. more like modern helicopter gunships or assault landers in e.g. star wars, them being threatened by close-range support stuff is not that extremely unrealistic. It's a bit silly when you hit a Thunderbolt or a Dakkajet like that, but Stormravens? Valkyries? Sure, why not.

tneva82 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Still are. -1 to hit? Don't care.

Compared to 7th ed where they couldn't hit period(or other blast/large weapons)

You mean as compared to back in the day when you

A. told you opponent ahead of time you were bringing flyers and got their agreement
b. You brought along one of the many AA units available in the game
. IG hydra, ork flak gunz, eldar firestorm, tau skyray etc....

Keep in mind before 6th ed almost all flyers were AV 10, including superheavies, and all pintle mounted weapons also counted as AA mounts.

Well if you told ahead of time...

Are you surprised if opponent brings up anti horde weapons if you tell you'll bring 300 gaunt list?

Duh. Look at the mirror

I never tell my lists in advance unless I know opponent isn't list tailoring jerk.

Just FYI flyers weren't opponent approval requirement in 7th. So that's squarely on you.

Back in the day i was referring to, bringing flyers or superheavies was a very rare thing and officially it was suggested you give your opponent a heads up because you wanted the game to be fun for both players.
After 6th when they became a more normal part of the game it wasn't really an issue. they also added many more AA units and options to deal with them.

I do not list tailor either. i have a master list of units i own and i swap out here and there for variety. but most of my lists are pretty well set. so now in most armies i have some AA capable units/upgrades in the list as standard. since we play hybrid 5th ed rules aircraft are harder to deal with for non-AA units . i also play with a large group of veteran players who are not tournament minded. all of us are pretty much casual players who have been playing various games for more than 10 years together. when it comes to 40K we play for epic battles in the 40K setting using whichever codex we like from 3rd-7th that best fits the feel of our favored faction.

I know you like playing the current edition. most of the players in our group range from ambivalence to outright dislike of 9th ed because we like more 'WAR game' simulation in our war game. hence the heavy shift in the local scene to classic BattleTech and FOW.

Since this topic is about "back in the day" i have current experience with it because that is how we still play-

Aside from a few very obvious rules fixes (like 5th ed wound allocation shenanigans) i pretty well love everything about our oldhammer games-templates, armor value/facing, initiative, end of game scoring etc...

The games are interesting, often very close and also most importantly very fun.

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

Tsagualsa wrote:
As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation.

I feel that both of you have missed the point here - the issue wasn't that Flamers were killing aircraft left and right, it was the fact that the game rules enabled flamethrowers to hit aircraft because GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

You assume they would ever be close enough to the ground for that to happen.

take for example the US WWII flamer

Effective firing range 65+1⁄2 ft (20.0 m)
Maximum firing range 132 ft (40 m)

I do not expect a marauder destroyer being that close to the ground. and that isn't even taking into account how fast aircraft will be going to be able to even hit them with a weapon like that.

Nah man he's right. There's tons of historical examples of flamethrowers being used against low-lying aircraft, especially Helicopters.

32% of all Huey losses in Vietnam were due to flamethrower-related attacks.





Every word I wrote above this sentence is bull gak.

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

I would set my expectation very low when it came to attempting to set a helicopter on fire with a flam thrower. There's this thing called rotor-wash And then there's the whole other end where the "aircraft' is flying fast enough to simply put out the fire just by moving through the air. Unless there's some other flammable material leading to an internal fire, electrical or engine, I can't see it as a thing irl.
As far as game mechanics I'm fine with it because as far as I know ever faction has the possibility as long as they have a flamer type weapon. Should it work that way/ Probably not but maybe auto hit weapons or mortal wound powers like spells/psyker powers, should also miss.

 warhead01 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
If aircraft are going to buzz around the battlefield like Helicopters in Rambo, I don't really see what's wrong with flamethrowers hitting them.

As far as game mechanics I'm fine with it because as far as I know ever faction has the possibility as long as they have a flamer type weapon. Should it work that way/ Probably not but maybe auto hit weapons or mortal wound powers like spells/psyker powers, should also miss.

Well if nothing else it's quite easy to houserule away. You could do what earlier editions did and just add 12'' to the distance when shooting at flyers, which would solve most of the problem.

Ah the old Heldrake with unit deleting Baleflamer, 360 turret, and Vector Strike kills just for flying over units. It was the one and only time in my Warhammer career where I had an OP unit.

 MalusCalibur wrote:
GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

I feel like this just sums up every edition of 40K for me.

 aphyon wrote:
Yeah and the d3 or d6 auto hits they went to in 8th+ really did not represent how many models you could possibly hit. last week a friend wanted to see how many models you could hit with a large blast if they were all grouped up and he had over 20 models on standard bases touching the template.

Templates and blasts in oldhammer were the 'risk' that countered the reward of grouping up models.

Most other aspects of the game, particularly with slower movement and shorter ranged shooting gave benefits to units that were packed in base to base as they could hide more easily and weren't losing half a squad of firepower due to being spread out of range. You would deploy completely differently against something like sisters (no blast weapons) than against guard.

Quite a change from 4e to 5e though and a lot of added opportunity for disagreement on the outcome.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah man he's right. There's tons of historical examples of flamethrowers being used against low-lying aircraft, especially Helicopters.

Who knew that the ultimate air superiority fighter was a 2nd ed Space Marine landspeeder with the flamer/meltagun loadout?

I mean, why bother with rockets or machineguns, just get on their tail and use the auto-hitting flamethrower!

I think they had a very popular Spitfire fitted with those. It was called the Spitflamer.

Silliness aside, yes, template weapons were there to enforce a semblance of reality. I remember a game where a guy had one marine peering around the edge of a building, and the rest were stacked up right behind him. I think he was planning on running the next turn or something.

Anyway, I unloaded the Cyclone for the full pie plate of death, centering it on the one visible target and wiped out the squad. Beautiful.

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Kind of feel the flamers into flyers was akin to the panic over lasguns killing Land Raiders.

I mean sure, D6 auto hits ignores the -1 to hit. But then you are wounding on 5s and the flyer probably has a 3+ save, so on average you are doing a wound. Its not really the stuff metas are made of.

Tsagualsa wrote:
As in many cases, it's edge cases being blown out of proportion for the most part. Sure, you could land some autohits on a flyer with a flamer, but as you said, actually killing something with it is another story. Stuff like Hellhounds, or titan inferno cannos are another story, but then superheavy main guns should be a threat to almost everything. You'd still need to get the flyer in range anyways, and if you park your flyer right on top of a flamer squad you deserve some retaliation.

I feel that both of you have missed the point here - the issue wasn't that Flamers were killing aircraft left and right, it was the fact that the game rules enabled flamethrowers to hit aircraft because GW didn't have the basic foresight to spot that ridiculous interaction.

Plus you had certain flamer weapons (or weapons that would have traditionally been flamers weapons had they existed prior to 8th...) that whilst they are conceptually meant to be something for dealing with hordes tended to be really really good at just deleted single high wound targets. Most prominent example was the 8th ed Foul Blightspawn, who could cause up to 18 wounds on a target in a single hit (2D6 strength, D6 shots that auto hit, rerolling 1 to wounds -2 save then 3 damage each), yet was armed with a weapon that in any other edition of the game would use a flamer template, yet was in an edition where the rules enabled him to be used that way.

It’s totally feasible great advances were made for flamer technology. There are STCs.