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.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

3+ on 2d6.

Mark of Khorne: 2+ on 2d6

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

My favorite weapons had awesome effects tables for what would happen when you used them. But no actual rules to actually use them ....

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Space Wolves make their debut in the pages of WD.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Metal bawkses!

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Glance damage table, pen damage table, ordnance damage table.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Taudar

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Zoanthropes rolled D12s and D10s for damage.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Raptors had Hit and Run and were Daemonkin.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Squats, Ymgarl genestealers and deodorant bottle land speeders.

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler:

Wolflord Patrick wrote:

 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.

It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.

We found a use for 8th-index 8th to be exact because it was easy to list build and it was streamlined enough to work and 3 universal stratagems were easy to remember and not game breaking.

We use it as an alternate rules set for epic 40K by just halving all ranges and movement distances. it works incredibly well in that setting but in a normal 28mm game setting it lacks so much depth it is really not interesting to play.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!

9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "

There are of course going to be some outliers from the older fans

I was never really in a hard lockdown so i got to experience 9th in all its "splendor" basically this entire time. it only took 1 read through of the core rules and i decided that was it. GW no longer makes a 40K war game. they make a 40K resource management game. so i jumped off the train and have been having the most fun with the universe ever since.

P.S. Every time somebody mentions how great terrain is in 9th i laugh because it is garbage compared to earlier editions, however it is an improvement over 8th so if that is all they had experienced i can see why some players think that going back and re-using bits of terrain rules from prior editions seems like an improvement.

So how many games of 9th Ed did you play? I played 9th Ed weekly from June to Dec, and then from Feb to April, and now since early July. I found I had to force myself to play 6th Edition, while 8th and 9th have genuinely been fun. Missions actually mean something now - my recollection of 5th Ed was to kill everything. Ditto for 6th and 8th.

The group that I play with the most at the FLGS are not new to 40K. I would hazard that most joined circa 5th Ed, with some joining earlier (me in 2nd) and some later. Neither are they hard-core tourney players. We have a local tourney every couple of months, but it does not go towards ITC standings and it is more of a fixed day when we know that we get at least three good games of 40K. Perhaps we fit the bill of those who play the most recent edition, but we've certainly enjoyed doing so. Like I said, our local tourneys sell out the day they go live to book spots, and while capacity is limited on Saturdays the available tables are booked for 40K 9th ed.

I get that you do not like where 40K has gone, but I don't think you need to look down your nose at those who do. Maybe just accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion?

DarknessEternal wrote:Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Template weapons were "guess" range and if you guessed wrong you could not even fire them.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

So how many games of 9th Ed did you play? I played 9th Ed weekly from June to Dec, and then from Feb to April, and now since early July. I found I had to force myself to play 6th Edition, while 8th and 9th have genuinely been fun. Missions actually mean something now - my recollection of 5th Ed was to kill everything. Ditto for 6th and 8th.

The group that I play with the most at the FLGS are not new to 40K. I would hazard that most joined circa 5th Ed, with some joining earlier (me in 2nd) and some later. Neither are they hard-core tourney players. We have a local tourney every couple of months, but it does not go towards ITC standings and it is more of a fixed day when we know that we get at least three good games of 40K. Perhaps we fit the bill of those who play the most recent edition, but we've certainly enjoyed doing so. Like I said, our local tourneys sell out the day they go live to book spots, and while capacity is limited on Saturdays the available tables are booked for 40K 9th ed.

I get that you do not like where 40K has gone, but I don't think you need to look down your nose at those who do. Maybe just accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion?

I see you are not familiar with my other posts on here. i have been actively playing 40k since about 2000, i have been running the late night gaming area at my FLGS since 2008 i am there for 12+ hours every saturday. we have a large space with many table that are first come first serve for free so throughout the day there is nothing that limits table space by being booked out for game system A or B. i have had players show up at mindnight and start a full scale apocalypse game. i have the opportunity to play or observe people playing loads of games from various editiions and game systems not just 40K/GW games. I also actively play/demo about 10 different systems (see my sig) because of this my take on game mechanics and game design is a bit more broad than "what did GW do this time."

GIven that background my experience with 9th edition game play is-from when it was released until now(we never really locked down during the pandemic switching over to small group private invite games as per the rules imposed on us). rather i directly played or watched it being played by various regulars my opinion on it hasn't changed. i give every system a chance, i even use index 8th edition still for an alternate rules set for epic 40K. because of this there are 2 editions i have played that i think are the worst editions GW ever made-6th and 9th. i will even still play 7th (without formations)

In my location, for the most part the veteran players who have been playing as long as i have do not enjoy 9th, and many of the new players i have demo'ed older editions for like them quite a bit for the options, lore rules, and game mechanics. building up a nice sized group of players who either enjoy playing older editions as well as or more than 9th. In this group mostly are casual players while the "hardcore WAAC players" tend to really like 9th


As for that last point-this is a discussion board and we are having discussions, everybody is entitled to their opinion of 9th rather it be negative or positive. arguing my positions isn't "looking my nose down" on anybody

aphyon,

Should I be familiar with your other posts? I respect, though, that you run games at your FLGS on a regular basis.

You say its just opinions and not looking down your nose at those who like 9th ed and yet immediately before that you say that the only people in your area that like 9th Ed are "hardcore WAAC players." So you are not casting a shade on those who like 9th? In your post to which I originally responded you used a similar approach.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
aphyon,

Should I be familiar with your other posts? I respect, though, that you run games at your FLGS on a regular basis.

You say its just opinions and not looking down your nose at those who like 9th ed and yet immediately before that you say that the only people in your area that like 9th Ed are "hardcore WAAC players." So you are not casting a shade on those who like 9th? In your post to which I originally responded you used a similar approach.

It is human nature to group things, there are obvious things that make the comp gamers stand out over casual gamers, recognizing that doesn't make it less true or a form of insult. It is just like every other aspect of the game. some players are more into the lore, the hobbying/customization/painting, the playing, or just the winning etc...


Everybody enjoys a win in a war game, but that is not always what some people enjoy most out of the hobby.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Wargear cards

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Nulify card.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.

9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.

Yet alpha striking is stronger than in most of editions. Maybe start of 8e it was stronger. But 3-7e were less of a alpha strike than 9e.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Orks still had named warboss Nazdreg, which allowed a 4th heavy support choice.

tneva82 wrote:
Yet alpha striking is stronger than in most of editions. Maybe start of 8e it was stronger. But 3-7e were less of a alpha strike than 9e.

And on what data you support this?

 Blackie wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Orks still had named warboss Nazdreg, which allowed a 4th heavy support choice.

Oohhh a tough one! That codex stretched all the way until late 4th/the cusp of 5th.

9th Ed. Alpha Strikes are nothing like ol' Doom of Malan'tai days, etc..

Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

Except you are wrong. i started in 3rd, it was good, better than 9th but it wasn't as good as 4th or 5th. 3rd/4th had most of the best codexes, 5th had the best overall core rule set.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I responded to "tell me which edition" because I think I might be an exception to your assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your assertion is that people who like 8th/9th are recent players. I played a handful of Rogue Trader games, hit a peak in 2nd, continued to play HARD from 3rd-5th, then skipped 6th and 7th. Despite that, 9th is my favourite edition.

So, am I an exception to your theory, or would you suspect someone who reports that 9th is their fave has been playing since RT?

Rhino Rush

I loved RT, liked 2nd, squattening, came back in 8th.
I liked 8th and always had fun but most of that was due to open war deck and like-minded playgroup.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

But I don't think the first edition that I played was the best. I never have, not even then. It was merely the edition.
Nor was the 2nd one I played the best. Mostly an improvement for sure though.
And you know what? Neither of the two most recent editions qualify either....

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

Yeah, no. You're wrong there- just like the guy on page 1 who wheeled out that same old chestnut...

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

Codex: Strawman hadn't been squatted yet.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.

wrong. Started in 2nd, think 4th was the best.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Red sustained fire dice; Terminator armor save was 3+ on 2D6; Lascannon armor penetration was 3D6.

So I obviously started in 2nd edition. My favorite edition is 8th with 5th as a very close second.