Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

At the time it was seen more as a humorous example of rampant codex creep than any particular offense against game balance or lore - 5e deepstrike was exceptionally dangerous for the unit, delayed for most of the game, and Cruddace had already jumped that particular shark with things like the triple-double lascannon Valkyrie.

But there was the impression that units were getting extra rules for the sake of extra rules.

A.T. wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

At the time it was seen more as a humorous example of rampant codex creep than any particular offense against game balance or lore - 5e deepstrike was exceptionally dangerous for the unit, delayed for most of the game, and Cruddace had already jumped that particular shark with things like the triple-double lascannon Valkyrie.

But there was the impression that units were getting extra rules for the sake of extra rules.

Yeah, My current impression of 10th edition is "special rules for the sake of special rules", like.. strategems and formations and whatnot, it all feels overly complex and "for the sake of themselves" rather than anything about game balance or making a good/fun game.

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

Technically every space marine chapter has access to thunderhawk transporters, they can carry 2 rhino hulls or a single land raider. the difference in game play with the blood angels codex was, you didn't actually need to own a physical model of a transporter to drop in a land raider via "deepstrike"

What that codex did was also make the blood angels very unique in there own way with assault squads being troops and reduced scatter range for jump infantry of all types. the codex is fantastic in the fact you can build so many varied lists from it. -all jump infantry, all death company, all elite jump infantry, dreadnought heavy, all fast vehicles etc... or any combination there of.

 aphyon wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

Technically every space marine chapter has access to thunderhawk transporters, they can carry 2 rhino hulls or a single land raider. the difference in game play with the blood angels codex was, you didn't actually need to own a physical model of a transporter to drop in a land raider via "deepstrike"

What that codex did was also make the blood angels very unique in there own way with assault squads being troops and reduced scatter range for jump infantry of all types. the codex is fantastic in the fact you can build so many varied lists from it. -all jump infantry, all death company, all elite jump infantry, dreadnought heavy, all fast vehicles etc... or any combination there of.

So kinda like how marines should be in general? Like... 2nd edition. Like if it was up to me I'd have tactical squads, assault squads, and dev squads, each squad could be upgraded to veterans (+1ws/+1bs/+1a) and all 3 could be troops by default. Let your paintjob/list building reflect what your chapter should be, but the generic list would be as expansive/full of options as possible. GW really did take the wrong road with marines in general. When you have elite veterans still having ws/bs4, the same as normal troops, then the extra equipment options don't feel all that great, and normal assault squads always felt nerfed.

BanjoJohn wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

Technically every space marine chapter has access to thunderhawk transporters, they can carry 2 rhino hulls or a single land raider. the difference in game play with the blood angels codex was, you didn't actually need to own a physical model of a transporter to drop in a land raider via "deepstrike"

What that codex did was also make the blood angels very unique in there own way with assault squads being troops and reduced scatter range for jump infantry of all types. the codex is fantastic in the fact you can build so many varied lists from it. -all jump infantry, all death company, all elite jump infantry, dreadnought heavy, all fast vehicles etc... or any combination there of.

So kinda like how marines should be in general? Like... 2nd edition. Like if it was up to me I'd have tactical squads, assault squads, and dev squads, each squad could be upgraded to veterans (+1ws/+1bs/+1a) and all 3 could be troops by default. Let your paintjob/list building reflect what your chapter should be, but the generic list would be as expansive/full of options as possible. GW really did take the wrong road with marines in general. When you have elite veterans still having ws/bs4, the same as normal troops, then the extra equipment options don't feel all that great, and normal assault squads always felt nerfed.

If your interested in the more thematic game play for space marines like i am most of the 3rd/index astartes or 4th ed dexes had the most flavor. for 5th the blood angels and space wolves were the exceptional stand outs. the 5th ed GK codex was a travesty of what they were supposed to be. probably the one of the worst of the 5th ed codexes. It is the reason our hybrid 5th ed group sees many of the 3rd/4th ed codexes being used in 5th- the chapter/craftworld etc.. should fight on the table the way the lore describes it. the 3.5 dark angels mini dex rules spends 2 pages doing more rules for the theme of the chapter than every entire codex that came after it.

Just as long as we don't go back to RT and start handing out Land Raiders to our IG regiments.

 aphyon wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
I dunno, aren't there thunderhawks that can transport land raiders? deep striking a land raider as a mobile drop operation from a thunderhawk does sound ridiculous but isn't out of bounds of a reasonable thing that you could see in the 40k universe.

Technically every space marine chapter has access to thunderhawk transporters, they can carry 2 rhino hulls or a single land raider. the difference in game play with the blood angels codex was, you didn't actually need to own a physical model of a transporter to drop in a land raider via "deepstrike"

What that codex did was also make the blood angels very unique in there own way with assault squads being troops and reduced scatter range for jump infantry of all types. the codex is fantastic in the fact you can build so many varied lists from it. -all jump infantry, all death company, all elite jump infantry, dreadnought heavy, all fast vehicles etc... or any combination there of.

So kinda like how marines should be in general? Like... 2nd edition. Like if it was up to me I'd have tactical squads, assault squads, and dev squads, each squad could be upgraded to veterans (+1ws/+1bs/+1a) and all 3 could be troops by default. Let your paintjob/list building reflect what your chapter should be, but the generic list would be as expansive/full of options as possible. GW really did take the wrong road with marines in general. When you have elite veterans still having ws/bs4, the same as normal troops, then the extra equipment options don't feel all that great, and normal assault squads always felt nerfed.

If your interested in the more thematic game play for space marines like i am most of the 3rd/index astartes or 4th ed dexes had the most flavor. for 5th the blood angels and space wolves were the exceptional stand outs. the 5th ed GK codex was a travesty of what they were supposed to be. probably the one of the worst of the 5th ed codexes. It is the reason our hybrid 5th ed group sees many of the 3rd/4th ed codexes being used in 5th- the chapter/craftworld etc.. should fight on the table the way the lore describes it. the 3.5 dark angels mini dex rules spends 2 pages doing more rules for the theme of the chapter than every entire codex that came after it.

I remember those times, it was very fun. Recently I started doing a collection of 3rd edition materials. Rulebook, codex's, white dwarf articles, the campaign books, city fight. I have a compiled 2200 page pdf so far that I'm still organizing. There were many more army lists in WD than I had previously remembered, and there were some assault rules changes and objective based missions were introduced at the end of 3rd, and presumably incorporated into 4th because it was only a month or two before the release of 4th.

Hopefully I will be able to cobble together a coherent "3rd edition battle bible" of sorts, or at least something other people can use to make something like it.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just as long as we don't go back to RT and start handing out Land Raiders to our IG regiments.

Never mind Guard, Harlequins also had them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just as long as we don't go back to RT and start handing out Land Raiders to our IG regiments.

Never mind Guard, Harlequins also had them.

Whaaa?

Ah yes back in the day when Eldar stole those superior "advanced" imperial vehicles.

2nd ed was kind of a mess lore wise, they didn't really decide what the official lore was until 3rd. that's why you see space marine models with eldar rifles, sisters of battle in space marine armor, imperial beast men...etc.

To be fair to GW, they just made a new tank, so why shouldn't every "faction" get to buy it? hehe. it's actually kinda brilliant, make something that everyone can buy to sell more.

I was today years old when I found out that the 3rd Edition Ork Codex had multiple printings, and that I managed to pick one up last year. Why is this important? Because I had the Ork Codex at release before, and they didn't have a summary page like every other Codex. Well, that was apparently fixed and I just NOW found that out...

Ah, the good old fashioned fun of 3.5 Iron Warriors players trying to claim that they had just no idea that there was ever a 2nd printing. Happy days.

In fairness one thing GW does really badly is actually putting version info on their books. It's really bad recently where they've had a few with exactly the same cover art or the same image but slightly altered but still very much the same image.

So yeah really easy to think that there's just one codex edition

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Ah, the good old fashioned fun of 3.5 Iron Warriors players trying to claim that they had just no idea that there was ever a 2nd printing. Happy days.

Okay, you have me curious because I'm not sure what you mean.

In the second printing, Obliterators were changed from T5 to T4(5).

 Lord Damocles wrote:
In the second printing, Obliterators were changed from T5 to T4(5).

It's one of the changes mentioned as a 'typographical error to be corrected at first' in the 2003 errata. Wonder when the reprint came out.

Full list of corrections :
P12 - Fearless rule misprinted. Use generic rule.
P14 - Servo-arm is Iron Warriors only. Juggernaut of Khorne 35 points, Talisman of Burning Blood 10/5. All Marks of Chaos should be asterisked as they can be used by models in Terminator armour.
P16 -Reference to Favour of Khorne under bionics should refer to Feel No Pain
P17 - The Terminator armour entry should state that models in Terminator armour count as stationary when shooting, even if they move.
P27 - Obliterator Toughness should be 4(5).
P32 - The line, The squad may be an Aspiring Champion should read The squad may include an Aspiring Champion.
P33 - Screamers of Tzeentch have the Furious Charge ability.
P34 - Predator Side Armour should be 11.
P37 - Maximum indirect fire range for a Defiler battle cannon is 72.
P47 - Axe of Khorne should be 20/15 points.
P47 - Kharn has Daemonic armour not Chaos armour.
P59 - An Aspiring Champion with the Mark of Tzeentch automatically passes any Psychic tests taken. All models with the Mark of Tzeentch are Fearless. A Disc of Tzeentch costs 30 points.
P60 - Thrall Wizards have T3 W1.


And a dozen more pages of errata that covers... some of the questions. Including the amusing RAW vs RAI :
(from the book) "A model with Daemonic Stature is at least 10' tall, and should always be based on a 40mm diameter base"
Q. Do models with Daemonic Stature really have to be 10 feet tall?
A. Only to scale.

That combination of metric (40mm base) and imperial that you further need to scale down is ridiculus.

Specially when 40k scale is already all over the place.

On 28mm/1:64 scale it should be 1.875"/47.625mm

On 32mm/1:54 scale it should be 2.22"/56.44mm

Thinking about it after talking "Old editions" with a friend, the biggest issue I have currently is that playing 5th with modern figures feels wrong, and looks off (due to scale). But then you either have to find old models on eBay (often being ripped off) or 3d print, and 3d printed models understandably so don't look quite right either due to copyright.

So as much as I want to play old editions, I can't do it in a way that actually feels like playing old editions, rather than using new models with old rules or using 3d models that don't look right (at which point I'd rather pitch OPR or something where they WOULD look right)

Wayniac wrote:
Thinking about it after talking "Old editions" with a friend, the biggest issue I have currently is that playing 5th with modern figures feels wrong, and looks off (due to scale). But then you either have to find old models on eBay (often being ripped off) or 3d print, and 3d printed models understandably so don't look quite right either due to copyright.

So as much as I want to play old editions, I can't do it in a way that actually feels like playing old editions, rather than using new models with old rules or using 3d models that don't look right (at which point I'd rather pitch OPR or something where they WOULD look right)

That's a matter of personal aesthetics, game platy wise the base size being slightly larger (primaris VS first born) isn't an issue. back when i started terminators were on 28mm bases, they didn't move to 40MM until 5th ed. and GW used to allow you to place the model on larger than normal bases they just had to be on the base the model came with or larger. our group plays with "counts as" primaris all the time. the models themselves look great we just treat them as true scale marines. Besides the vehicles have never been to proper scale. a rhino should be the size of a land raider and a land raider should be the size of a bane blade even with the size of first born marine models.

Yeah, people have been 'true scaling' marines since 3rd or 4th edition, so Primaris are not more out of place than those ever were. And base sizes have never been particularly important in 40K.

I can certainly agree that it's potentially off-putting having modern models on the table against or with their smaller classic counterparts (one of the reasons I largely stopped buying GW models post Primaris and the accompanying scale-jump in everything else), but, again, that was always a problem... back when I started, it was 2nd edition and later models against the generally smaller RT-era sculpts. And Orks just kept getting bigger every time new models were released...

Which, I guess, is a rambling way of saying use the models you like with whichever edition you want to play. There's nothing intrinsically tying models of a particular size to any specific edition.

More sillyness, our chaos player wanted to play test a little titanic struggle. he proxied a great unclean one as the gargantuan scabithrax to face off against my admech with warhound titan.

Since i had nothing but guns (no battle claw) i used my superior speed to stay at range and shoot him to death. he did manage to take down most of my ground troops with only handful of sicarian infiltrators surviving the game.

Best moment-dropping a twin turbo laser destructor on the lone chaos champion chasing my titan with a power fist.

I've started working on the "Rogue Trader bible".. and I can already tell you, this will be a multiyear affair

Thousand+ pages of rules to sift through, 73 issues of WD on top of that. It's not going to be as easy as I thought it'd be, even with the aid of modern tools.. But it will be worth it in the end

It is about time to cycle through armies again so i brought along my original 3.5 ed dark angels army.

I had about 2,800 points to play with, to make up my 2K army lists.



The first game i ran with the deathwatch and without the land raiders as we were doing a light armor/infantry heavy fight.

We both killed the same number of units but i lost out on the tiebreakers.

Game 2 i left out the deathwatch and brought in the land raiders and Azrael with the deathwing command squad.

This game went a bit better for me, killing off all but 3 templar infantry and immobilizing both speeders and the one surviving land raider crusader.

I had a badly damaged crusader myself, with Azrael and his squad hiding inside. my land raider helios, a dreadnought and a tactical squad.

 insaniak wrote:
Which, I guess, is a rambling way of saying use the models you like with whichever edition you want to play. There's nothing intrinsically tying models of a particular size to any specific edition.

One of the advantages in going full-retro on 2nd is that models are something insanely cheap. Lots of one-pose stuff out there that no one wants to flesh out your armies and give you that 90s vibe.

My armies are split between GW and alternates. The Eldar are almost all VOID 1.1 stuff when the company went under and a store did clearance. They look great, though I did get some vintage Vypers.

Orks are all GW, but of course need lots of kit-bashing.

Chaos is hybrid VOID, GW and some other stuff.

My marines are all stock 2nd ed. It was my primary army, though I did sell off some of the 3rd/4th vehicles and buy vintage to flesh it out.

IG is WW II historicals with kit-bashed tanks and sentinels. A smattering of GW heavy weapons.

SOB are all VOID.

Tyranids are vintage 2nd, with the exception of plastic hormogaunts. Very cheap to find one-pose genestealers.

I don't have separate SW or BA/DA since my imperial marine collection is big enough to have them be a successor chapter of anyone I want.

VOID also provided a lot of material for Imperial Agents, Adeptus Arbites and other oddball stuff. Given the smaller size of the games, you can build a 2,000 point army for about $100 if you know what you are doing. The books are getting pricy, but still not too bad, plus there are battle bibles out there.

Those armies look so cool. And you can imagine even a teen collecting one of those. 3 dreads, 20-30 marines, 2 land raiders and extras. Easy to transport, easy to get. No wonder w40k was "killing" WFB over time.

I think when I started my army, it was was one of such armies. 15 metal terminators, 3 dreadnoughts, 1 Draigo, 1 Librarian. 5 power armoured dudes and a razorback. The modern w40k seems to have a much different feel to it, both army wise, and how it is played. But the classic stuff and classic style armies are just great. Size wise they feel a bit like OPR games.

Karol wrote:
Those armies look so cool. And you can imagine even a teen collecting one of those. 3 dreads, 20-30 marines, 2 land raiders and extras. Easy to transport, easy to get. No wonder w40k was "killing" WFB over time.

I think when I started my army, it was was one of such armies. 15 metal terminators, 3 dreadnoughts, 1 Draigo, 1 Librarian. 5 power armoured dudes and a razorback. The modern w40k seems to have a much different feel to it, both army wise, and how it is played. But the classic stuff and classic style armies are just great. Size wise they feel a bit like OPR games.

That Dark angels force pictured is actually over 2,700 points so i can swap out things for variant lists. using the normal FOC it allows for some enjoyable versatility. i also have 2 additional dreadnoughts with alternate weapons, 2 more variant land raiders and a land speeder to choose form if i want to bring them along.

The reason the game feels different now, is because it is. In filmdeg's interview on YT with Rick Preistly he pointed out the influences of many of the original game designers for 40K was in 15mm WWII war games, where as most of the current GW game designers have a background in board games and card games.

Our scheduled games for tonight were 2k games

the table was a mars mat with the space marine outpost-





I was running my 3.5 dark angels with the blackstar standing in as a Xiphon fighter.



To stay withing theme i ran all the plasma.

Game 1 was against a 4th ed black templars list, straight up kill point.

He got me by 2 making the easy kills on my drop pods.







Game 2 was against 3.5 nurgle with 4 objectives.







This one was a victory for me, i lost a few units including my master, but i took him down to a single land raider on the table.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Just as long as we can chose to forget the great evil that was the Blood Angels and their Deep Striking Land Raiders (I want to blame Mat Ward, but he was Ultramarines, if my memory serves).

Anything Matt Ward touched during that era was always dunce worthy. GK Paladin wound spam and the stupidly OP Daemons WFH army book that basically forced a new rule edition being the worst offenders.