Switch Theme:

The 40K- all things old editions topic.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Screamin' Stormboy





I started out with 2nd, casually with a few friends, and built up space marines and ork armies beginning with the starter box. Fun times, and while I was more into the modeling, painting, and lore aspects, the few games I played were fun (again, casual). The 2nd edition fluff is still my favorite, nostalgia or not.

After college, I found my old models and picked up the then recently-released 4th edition rules and a space marine codex to start. My models were still valid and I really enjoyed this ruleset. Fluff-wise, I noticed the game had become a lot more serious and less goofy ("grimdark"), but the game rules were an improvement over 2nd: less tables to consult, better use of universal special rules, and a general simplification but not over-simplification. However, I quit soon after due to life changes (marriage, work, etc.) and sold my armies on ebay.

A couple years ago, after having kids, I found my old Blood Bowl figures and got back into playing that game (still my favorite GW game). Then when a Warhammer store opened up down the street where I worked I stopped in and got back into 40k starting with 8th edition. I was skeptical at first, but I have come to like 8th's even more simplified rules, and I now have several armies to play with and for when my boys get a little bit older. Again, just casual, with only the codexes and no supplements.

8th, along with the new Killteam for smaller games, is a ruleset that I can quickly teach friends and family on if they show an interest. While there are definitely a lot of dice to roll/reroll, 8th's core rules are very fitting for a casual beer and pretzels type of game.

I had hoped that 8th would continue to be more of a living ruleset, with an updated rulebook to incorporate the various FAQs over the years, and possibly incorporating some gameplay elements from Killteam and the new Apocalypse (see below). However, I now see 9th as an attempt to focus more on the tournament gamer scene, with more wordy and complex rules, and less of a clean-up of 8th. I anticipate 9th to require many FAQs to clean up the transition from 8th, as well as to help rectify issues that sprout up from the new rules. Having gone through that with 8th, I don't have a desire to go through that again anytime soon.

Instead of jumping into 9th, I decided to pick up a set of older rulebooks and codexes from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. Primarily for their fluff and artwork (which I really adore from the older editions), but also to have to try out some games of the older editions again. Averaging about $5 a rulebook/codex on ebay, these are still very nice books and it is neat to see the rules progression. I have come to really appreciate these older editions, in particular 2nd for its fluff and 3rd/4th/5th for their rulesets (4th may be my favorite from that era and a hybrid 4th/5th edition may very well be the best 40k standard ruleset).


Sidenote: Now owning several armies, I picked up the latest edition of Apocalypse last year to try out. This is now probably my favorite 40k ruleset to play "standard" sized 40k games. Even more beginner player-friendly than 8th, allowing the use of more of my models, with more strategic depth IMO due to alternating activations and wound allocation, and still a bit of crazy randomness due to the card system. I am keeping my older edition 40k rules and codexes for the occassional standard 40k game, but given a choice, I'd prefer to play games of Apocalypse instead.

Final note: And Blood Bowl is still the best GW game

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 15:27:16


40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Chaos Space Marines, Necrons (all 2000+ points)
AOS: Ogor Mawtribes, Sons of Behemat (using Mantic/3rd party giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic
LOTR SBG: Mordor, Rohan, Dead of Dunharrow, Moria 
   
Made in us
Hacking Shang Jí





Fayetteville

I got in during 4th, but didn't actually play anything until after 5th dropped. So 5th is my preferred edition of the two I played. I prefer 5th because it didn't have the allies shenanigans or flyers. I had the most fun playing the first half of 5th with the WD Codex BA and the second half with Footdar using the 4th ed codex.

I've been unsuccessful at oldhammer. I think I managed to play one game of 5th during 7th.

The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in ie
Furious Raptor




Ireland

I prefer editions with limited randomness, so 4th edition would suit my chaos marines best.

Which editions introduced random charges by the way? I've always hated that rule. Also does 8th let you keep the distance you charged even if you didn't full make the charge? I remember one edition that didn't which was ridiculous.

   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

a fat guy wrote:
I prefer editions with limited randomness, so 4th edition would suit my chaos marines best.

Which editions introduced random charges by the way? I've always hated that rule. Also does 8th let you keep the distance you charged even if you didn't full make the charge? I remember one edition that didn't which was ridiculous.
I believe 6th was the first I remember with a random charge range - 5th was just a flat 6", if I'm not mistaken?

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

5th edituion was horrible! Vehicles essentually had an 'exstra save' where you just rolled on a table to see if it died, and it rarly did. Close combat units did not get to hit first in a charge despite having high I because they lacked frag greandes. It was a horrible time to be playing tyranids in particular. Armies had terrible internal balances and even worse external balanses



I did not find any of that to be true at all. vehicles were tough but if you brought the right gun they were either killed outright since they effectively had 1 wound or they were damaged in a way that reduced their effectiveness, monsterous creatures were effectively tanks that could be hurt by most small arms fire but suffered no degradation.

Also tyranids had flesh hook upgrades that counted as "grenades" so they struck at initiative when charging through cover. i fought many very tough nid armies in 5th both horde and monster based and they were tough no matter which way you did it.

As for balance, well it is GW so i never expect complete balance but i do want a fun experience and while 5th did address the min/max las/plas squads for marines the most important factor was it was enjoyable to play. not something i can say i cared for in late 7th formation spam or current 8th stratagem spam.

inal note: And Blood Bowl is still the best GW game


I feel that way about battlefleet gothic-best game GW has ever made, but then again i hate football so a game that simulates it doesn't interest me.





I believe 6th was the first I remember with a random charge range - 5th was just a flat 6", if I'm not mistaken?


Mostly correct. standardized charges were 6" or 12" if you were beast/cavalry/leaping. rolling for range when moving through terrain (back when terrain actually affected gameplay) made sense, random rolls for charging over open flat ground never did. i to despise the random charge range rules that started in 6th.



I prefer editions with limited randomness,


Normally i would agree. except the 4th/5th ork codex, i mean the random charts were so orky. shokk attack gun- "ima gonna fire it, whats it gonna do? i dont know" or the ramshakle table for trukks

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 18:53:34


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

 aphyon wrote:
5th edituion was horrible! Vehicles essentually had an 'exstra save' where you just rolled on a table to see if it died, and it rarly did. Close combat units did not get to hit first in a charge despite having high I because they lacked frag greandes. It was a horrible time to be playing tyranids in particular. Armies had terrible internal balances and even worse external balanses



I did not find any of that to be true at all. vehicles were tough but if you brought the right gun they were either killed outright since they effectively had 1 wound or they were damaged in a way that reduced their effectiveness, monsterous creatures were effectively tanks that could be hurt by most small arms fire but suffered no degradation.
I'd also like to add that vehicles were nearly always weaker in CC versus Monstrous Creatures (both in terms of them being able to do damage, and in actually receiving it - vehicles could be killed bare handed without too much risk), and vehicles, unlike MCs, had no Armour Save at all. Sure, in 5th a Vehicle could take near-infinite "Wounds", but every time something hurt it, it caused some degree of effect. On the contrary, a MC could hope for it's Armour Save to protect it from all damage entirely, and no matter what, you couldn't kill one outright.

Vehicles were invulnerable to small arms (unless you got a chance to shoot at a weak spot - bolters in the back of a Leman Russ was surprisingly effective in my experience), but were so much weaker after the Wounding/Armour Penetration stage.

For MCs, you had Hit, Wound, Armour Save, Remove Wound.
For Vehicles, you had Hit, Penetrate, Random Detrimental Effect (with chance to kill instantly)

As for balance, well it is GW so i never expect complete balance but i do want a fun experience and while 5th did address the min/max las/plas squads for marines the most important factor was it was enjoyable to play. not something i can say i cared for in late 7th formation spam or current 8th stratagem spam.
Eh, stratagems are fine in concept. When the entire game boils down to stratagems, then it's not.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in gb
Jealous that Horus is Warmaster





London, UK

I played 2nd ed at school and jumped back in at 5th. Skipped 6 & 7th on the gaming side, but came back to that in 8th.I know times change, but I do miss a lot of the weirdness of 2nd Edition. Also, I have an RT era book for Orks, which included such things as rolling your own Painboy bionics and Custom weapons. Despite the models growing exponentially, something has been lost from the early days which makes the universe seem smaller somehow. But, I will say Blackstone fortress is a really good example of exploring these grey areas of the Imperium, which I approve of.

I really liked the streamlined 5th ed rules for playing though. Liked templates, hated the glancing hit locking of vehicles and the wound allocation shenanigans.

The models these days are fabulous and I do top up my multi edition Ork and Eldar armies. I also have an SM force, but Primaris killed my interest in them stone dead. I have an entire company and couldn't face painting that many marines again.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 19:17:18


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.

IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





.what edition you prefer and why
5th. It had a lot of issues with codex creep and objective scoring but games were paced well enough that you often felt you were losing as much if not more due to your choices over multiple turns than your dice, you often wanted to go second (cruddace/creep not withstanding), and every factiion had a shot at being average or better during its run.
Vehicles got stuck between being made cheaper due to vulnerability (end of 4e) and being made tougher without the price going back up (5th onwards, first marines and the memorably guard and their chimeras)

.how does your local gaming group feel about playing/supporting the older editions / .what rules do you use, including house rules
The local group started drifting away in 6th, all but gone in 7th and 8e just didn't bring them back. Games were played, but they often became a battle of the dice buckets and endless layers of bonuses and rerolls and were just discouraging.
We play by the book (with the extended maelstrom rules) but unless the new edition is a huge turnaround I suspect there is a better chance of getting games with my 5e complete re-write project than with 9e (also the models are just far too expensive for people to get back into with an updated army)

.post your battle reports. / .post your retro armies.
I still have an old school/notebook of 5e army lists showing change through the edition from a DH list with supporting sisters, to sisters/inquisition/stormtroopers, through to mech sisters later in the edition. Plus a bunch of chaos tournament lists and mixed fun lists.

A few highlights included the five battlewagon ork lists, a 1000pt 3e glass cannon dark eldar list with 10 lances and 9 disintegrators (among other things), a 1500pt nid list with the parasite leading gargoyles, 3 squads of infiltrating genestealers, two trygons, and ten ravagers that was designed to hit the opposing line all at the same time, and a WH list with Karamazov leading 9 penitent engines and horde of zealots.

My mid edition 'competitive' WH list at 1850 was :
Canoness, melta celestians, immolator
3x melta celestians, immolators
4x flamer/heavy flamer battle sisters, repressor
3x exorcists
-pretty much what you'd expect to see out of an imperial army around 2009-2010. Three heavy slots, lots of vehicles, melta, templates, and troops choices, few invulnerables, and fewer rerolls. I regret never having secured a fourth repressor to field this wysiwyg.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 19:35:32


 
   
Made in us
Faithful Squig Companion



Aloha, Oregon

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some people are out there who wish for more simulationism.

They call it "realism" but essentially, there are people who want units to function the way they "should" in the lore. They're just not people who are playing right now (and therefore won't be on this forum or at other community nexi).

I watched, just this sunday, a gentleman who was playing his first game give up on 40k. The thing that broke it for him? The enemy player moved infantry through a solid Ruin wall. That's normal to old hats of 40k, but this guy didn't get it, and I don't really blame him. He was confused, not because the rules weren't simple enough, but because they weren't intuitive enough. They didn't match his picture of "how things should be" in the reality that the game represents, so he went back to only reading the novels.


I had a moment like that in a game of killteam recently - I had no idea that you can fight thru solid walls. I thought my leader was safe inside of a shipping container out of (real movement) charge range but nope, mr marine with a powerfist can just get within an inch by hugging the outer wall of the container. We just on the spot added a -1 to hit penalty for both combatants to simulate having to chop thru metal to get at the other guy.

And lore wise, I can totally conceptualize a marine/clawnob tearing chunks from a wall to get to the dude on the other side. I just didn't consider that the rules DON'T forbid it and assumed that LOS blocking/solid terrain would just not allow melee combat.
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Deleted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 23:37:24


 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

 Elbows wrote:
Termagants should be small, ineffective but cheap swarm creatures. However, through stratagems and increasingly deadly wargear, somehow Termagants in 8th edition are firing six shots per model with a gun equivalent to a bolter, occasionally with additional boons from psychic powers...it feels super gamey and has very little connection with what a Termagant should represent in the 40K universe. We saw the same thing all edition with Tzangors being better than actual Thousand Sons Space Marines, Conscripts orginally being better than Guard, Cultists better than Chaos Space Marines, etc.
In all fairness, I experienced that in 5th with vanilla Marines - you were encouraged to take Scouts, not Tacticals, so you had more points for everything else - which completely did not gel with Tacticals being the backbone of the Marine army, and Scouts as a usually reserve or vanguard force.

Unfortunately, when it comes to Marines and the general MEQ profile, unless you start going up to the Primaris level, people just don't want to take the more expensive troops option unless it's more than basic bodies. Which is a shame, because I love the basic power armoured Marine as my army's core instead of Scouts.

Read the history of the Charadon Crusade: The Crusade of Fury was at an end.
Join the Crion Crusade: I think it's the combination of butt jokes, democratic necrons, explosions, and mind-fething that draws people to this Crusade like moths to a bug zapper - War Kitten
Rippy wrote:Never forgetti, template spaghetti.
DR:90S++G++MB+IPw40k07-D++A++/sWD366R++T(F)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Deleted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 23:45:58


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






4th Ed and 2nd Ed are my favorites.

4th ed is a great game with clean rules and a huge breadth of codex options.

2nd is very messy, but also has the most visceral imagery in the rules, and is a more intimate sort of battle. I still get 2nd ed games from time to time.

5th Ed turned it into more of a vehicle game, high AP weapons started ballooning, invulns started ballooning, flavor-options began dropping from codexes, TLOS is dumb, etc.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

Unit1126PLL wrote:I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.

IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).


The problem with the 4th ed vehicle damage rules was directly related to skimmers. they could only every be glanced even if they did not move, the only way to destroy them outright (not through cumulative damage)was a glance 6 if they moved over 6" (otherwise they just "landed". combine that with the vehicle upgrades for eldar and to a lesser extent tau made them nearly impossible to kill from shooting. and in CC you always need 6+ to even hit them no matter how far they moved. the 5th ed damage table and the removal of the skimmer rule in 5th fixed that problem. but GW threw the baby out with the bathwater and removed the movement penalties along with it. combine the 2 and it is much better. both from a game mechanic standpoint as well as an immersion or aesthetic standpoint. that's why our group did it.

Elbows wrote:Sure, it's not "new", but far more prevalent and obvious now. The age old "problem" of "troop tax" is just a failure of GW to reign in force organization - while simultaneously trying to sell you boxes of elite models.



The complain has always been about the "troop" options under performing. this was fixed with certain armies later on, but not all, the troop options for cult mechanicus/skitari in the 7th ed codex are quite good with loads of options.

On the flip side they really solved the problem with Horus Heresy. basic legion troops could specialize if you wanted a huge squad with all bolters you could do that, or up to a 20 man assault squad, or a dedicated fire support tac squad that all carried special weapons.....need to deal with hordes? give them all rotor guns, need some heavy hitting long range anti-infantry/light vehicle killing-volkite culverins, need to make sure that armor is dead give them all melta guns. and so on. heck even the transports counted to fill a troop slot if they were not a dedicated transport. so all the "tax" units were not really a tax because they really do give the force much needed power. and that isn't even getting into the other parts of the FOC or even the legion specific special units like the salamander's pyroclast squads.


TLOS is dumb, etc.


For a second i thought that was TSOLR and i was like hey you leave Frep and Kren outta this!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/30 05:58:21


 
   
Made in ie
Furious Raptor




Ireland

What alternatives are there to Games Workshops rules sets?

I'm sure that there are a few man-made systems with supported codices that are still kept up to date somewhere...

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.

IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar.
Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.

Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

A.T. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.

IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar.
Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.

Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.


This is exactly what I am talking about though. Players didn't like it, but it is more immersive if, when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay". That's just not intuitive. Transports may have been deathtraps in 4e, but in general, things like the M113 (my brain's rhino analogue) were deathtraps in real life if you used it as anything other than a battle taxi to-and-from the front line (or fought forces without anti-tank equipment).

It would in fact be safer to run behind your transport in real life (or really, spread out, find cover, and not be anywhere near an armored vehicle) when facing an enemy with a plethora of antitank weapons. The reason forces don't is mobility, which gets to one of my problems with 4th edition: infantry weren't that much slower than vehicles. Mounting up in a transport should be risky: "do I risk losing the whole squad to the transport going up, but gain the increased mobility? Or do I play it safe, stay low, spread out, but move slowly?"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/30 14:40:01


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 aphyon wrote:
The purpose of this thread is for those of us who are tired of the GW rollercoaster of points and rules changes that make the game something we don't enjoy with "the next edition"

I decided to start this topic as i notice a load of people who really like the skirmish play of RT and second edition (never played it myself but i have some of the books). or those like myself who started in 3rd who think the direction that 9th is going is a bad direction we are not interested in moving into it.


There obviously is a drive for players to want to play the current edition, bit nobody is forcing us to.
Because of that. this thread will lend itself to social or casual play and not the current tournament meta.

Nobody disputes how great GWs model have become. i myself am tempted to pick up some primaris to use in 30K as MKIV maximus armor for my legion for example.


with that in mind feel free to tell us
.what edition you prefer and why
.how does your local gaming group feel about playing/supporting the older editions
.what rules do you use, including house rules
.post your battle reports.
.post your retro armies.

I got my start with dark angels back in mid 3rd ed so i have been playing for 2 decades. my preference is for 5th edition as the logical progression of the game.
6th edition was a death sentence for 40K at our FLGS, it came back a bit in 7th and more in 8th, after seeing the direction that GW is going with 9th i am completely turned off by it.

I find 8th bare bones to be excellent for playing in epic 6mm scale and still do with halving all movement and weapon ranges by half.

With great 3rd party companies like vanguard, onslaught, trolls under the bridge (necrons and some rare guard units) and other 3d printed sellers on ebay there is no shortage of any 40K unit to play with in 6mm scale.

Our FLGS has a small group of veterans who have been playing as long as i have who also prefer 5th and are teaching people to play it.(just did a game last night with 2 players who only knew 8th)

To make 5th even better we took the time to consider all the best rules from all compatible editions (3-7) and put them into 5th with 5th as the core rules. this allows all the players to choose which of the codex editions they want to use to represent their force.

For example our khorne player is using 3.5 my space marines and our blood angels are using 5th. my mechanicus are using 7th.

these are the "house rules" that we pulled from other editions and put into 5th

.rapid fire weapon rules (6th/7th)
.snap fire(6th/7th)
.new weapon profiles(grav etc..)(6th/7th)
.overwatch(6th/7th)
.objective secure-troops choice(6th/7th)
.CCW AP value(6th/7th)
.grenade throwing(6th/7th)
.fearless-no LD checks(3rd)
.3+ reserves(6th/7th)
.no hull points-5th ed glance/pen chart only
.flyer rules(5th/forge world flyer rules)-jump units can assault, -12" range penalty for guns, immobilize result= destroyed
.All AA units can choose to fire skyfire or ground fire
.4th edition vehicle assault rules-to-hit +armor facing= auto/4+/6+=not move/move up to 6"/move over 6"
.6th edition smash for MCs(half attacks rounded up max S 10)
. independent characters can fight separate in CC(counts as separate battle)
.D/macro weapons 5th=auto pen/wound, no cover or armor- invul only/ 1 damage against MCs/instant death non-MCs/ +1 on vehicle damage chart
.vehicle squads act as talons, can break and act independent but not reform during game.(5th)
.psyker powers used when in the proper phase(shooting attacks in shooting phase, melee in CC etc..) on lD check/selecting the known powers available at the start of the game as per 5th ed rules-includes all 7th edition disciplines.
.snipers-strength 3 always hits on 2+/wounds on 4+/rending on 6+ (3rd/4th)
.defensive weapons on vehicles-S5 or less do not count as heavy weapons if the vehicle moves at combat speed (and is not stunned/shaken)-4th


So what's your favorite version of 40K and how do you play it?

(I will be posting pics after the next game.)



That's uh, pretty heavily houseruled. I don't know if I'd call it any edition anymore!

Anyway, my favorite rose-tinted glasses edition was probably 5th. 6th introduced a lot of things that I think were bad: hull points, giant monstrous creatures [Riptide, Wraithknight], Super Heavies in regular games [Escalation], Allied Detachments, noninfantry nontroops being able to score period, and I want to say Flyers as well but don't quote me on that.
7th doubled down on what was bad from 6th and also made it worse, with formations and even more really big things and the whole deal with psychic powers.

That also said, until the SM Supplements were rolled out, I would definitely say that 8th was the best edition. It had something I didn't really feel was on point with any of the past editions I played, which is more important than any level of disgruntlement about simulationism and everything having hitpoints: balance, and active attempts at balance. Then they f**ked it up with the Space Marine supplements and even more free rules.
There's a lot of things I don't like about 8th:
Subfaction rules should never have happened. There should never have been chapter tactics and regimental doctrines. Your force doesn't need rules to show off it's individuality, especially when said rules narrow your individuality down to one of 6 chapters/regiments/etc.
Allies still need to go, and were the primary definer of the haves and the have-nots of pre supplement's 8th. You either had a loyal 32/disloyal 17, or you didn't.
I've actually generally warmed up to super heavies being okay because they seem reasonably balanced right now, and the difference between a Riptide and a Wraithknight and a Imperial Knight is a "where do you draw the line?" question. That said, I think the all-super-heavy faction of Imperial Knights needs to be deleted and rolled-into Adeptus Mechanicus as super-heavy choices or something and similar for Chaos Knights [or maybe fleshed out with infantry troops and scouts and the likes]. It's a list archetype that on it's own is largely nonviable, doesn't really play the same game, and exists almost solely to ally with other Imperial or Chaos factions to bring in yet another super-heavy choice.



One thing I have never seen in 40k is a good morale mechanic. It just hasn't been. The previous edition's version of 2d6 under LD or fall back was basically inconsequential, and the current editions is either inconsequential or so punishing to the point where forces that are designed to be hurt by it have methods to trivialize it to maintain their integrity. The fundamental problem here is playability and what players desire; people don't want their toy soldiers to run away or be scared or pinned or whatever. It's easier to take a unit being destroyed than it is it being present on the board but useless. I think a good morale system can be made [for example, I think Flames of War morale works for Flames of War], but it can't just be stapled onto 40k without systematic changes; I increasingly think that we should just do away with morale in 40k entirely.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Spoiler:
A.T. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I also think 5th was great but incorporating 4th's damage tables would've been better.

IIRC, exploding vehicles was more difficult in 5th with regular penetrating hits, while in 4th, exploding vehicles was very easy with certain types of other penetrating hits (Ordnance Penetrating Hits table). I don't remember which was easier, but I think 4th was the easier one (with the default pen chart).
In 4th it could often be safer to run behind your transport than ride in it, unless you were tau or eldar.
Any penetrating hit and the passengers jumped out suffering 50% wounds and a pinning test (or automatic pinning and 75% casualties if wrecked). A sufficiently large hit ordnance and everyone was just dead, no saves.

Somewhere between the two would have worked. Probably +1 damage if immobilized, attackers choice between weapon destroyed and immobilized results, and perhaps entanglement on explodes! Just removing the ability of 5e vehicles to indefinitely shrug off damage without turning them into 4e's flaming coffins of death.


This is exactly what I am talking about though. Players didn't like it, but it is more immersive if, when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay". That's just not intuitive. Transports may have been deathtraps in 4e, but in general, things like the M113 (my brain's rhino analogue) were deathtraps in real life if you used it as anything other than a battle taxi to-and-from the front line (or fought forces without anti-tank equipment).

It would in fact be safer to run behind your transport in real life (or really, spread out, find cover, and not be anywhere near an armored vehicle) when facing an enemy with a plethora of antitank weapons. The reason forces don't is mobility, which gets to one of my problems with 4th edition: infantry weren't that much slower than vehicles. Mounting up in a transport should be risky: "do I risk losing the whole squad to the transport going up, but gain the increased mobility? Or do I play it safe, stay low, spread out, but move slowly?"
Yeah, this. As far as I know, in the real world, the moment a transport begins taking serious fire everybody jumps out, finds cover and begins to return fire. And if a transport blows up with everyone in it. . . the folks inside are either dead or very preoccupied with extracting themselves and pulling squad-mates out of the burning wreckage.

Also, iirc, in 4th you could still hop out of a transport at the end of its move, so you had a nice choice available. In a transport you risked casualties and pinning from effective AT fire, but you could strike farther forward in the next turn. Or you could dismount and use the transport for LOS cover, but you moved more slowly.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Elbows wrote:


The manipulation of rules and stratagems to boost units that should be background NPCs...completely ruined the "feel" of the game for me. Eldar didn't get away with it either, with Guardians being arguably better than almost all of the aspect warriors - again due to a handful of stratagems, and spells (and the inexplicable bump to BS/WS 3+...but that's another story)..


well, you get your wish with 8th. Never again will you have to see a "background NPC" unit on the board...and good news, Guardians are fethed more than any other unit in the entire game with their default unit sizes of 6 for storm guardians and 11 for guardians with gun platforms!

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".


They also are not astartes in power armor


That's uh, pretty heavily houseruled. I don't know if I'd call it any edition anymore!


how exactly? we are using 5th ed as the core meaning 5th ed rules take precedent over any thing we have not addressed here. this allows all compatible editions codexes to work together.in 5th. we just took the best rules for certain things out of the other editions and shoehorned them into the 5th rules set.

Your force doesn't need rules to show off it's individuality,


That's actually at the core of non-tournament play, you want those rules to make it an immersive game for the universe. it is something that makes marines something other than vanilla ultra-marines are a guard regiment something other than cadians wearing different armor.

I've actually generally warmed up to super heavies being okay because they seem reasonably balanced right now,


They were more balanced in 5th, 6th/7th and the changes to D weapons is where they got silly. in 5th i watched a squad of rough riders take out a bane blade in a single charge with melta bombs with the super heavy damage chart+structure point system in a normal 2k game.


One thing I have never seen in 40k is a good morale mechanic. It just hasn't been. The previous edition's version of 2d6 under LD or fall back was basically inconsequential


Completely disagree, for 40K mechanics this is still the best and simple system to use and it had direct consequences in the game. especially when units could run right off the table or be broken from sweeping advance.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/30 18:45:16


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

 aphyon wrote:
when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".


They also are not astartes in power armor

Neither are most people in 40k, and the ones that are don't ride in tanks powered by modern-day fuels that explode in a way we can understand. Massive fireballs can, and do, kill space marines in the fluff.

Furthermore, the way most of those explosions worked permitted you your armor save (so wearing power armor did help you more than wearing flak armor). The only one that didn't AFAIK was Ordnance Penetrating Hits, and that means the ordnance shell penetrated the vehicle and detonated among the passengers. I can't think of an Ordnance weapon in those editions with an AP greater than 3, so the marines not in the transport but in the same formation would also have been vaporized in the explosion of the shell by itself, not to mention the tank around them.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/30 19:02:10


 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
when a vehicle explodes into a massive fireball, the people inside aren't "mostly okay".


They also are not astartes in power armor

Neither are most people in 40k, and the ones that are don't ride in tanks powered by modern-day fuels that explode in a way we can understand. Massive fireballs can, and do, kill space marines in the fluff.

Furthermore, the way most of those explosions worked permitted you your armor save (so wearing power armor did help you more than wearing flak armor). The only one that didn't AFAIK was Ordnance Penetrating Hits, and that means the ordnance shell penetrated the vehicle and detonated among the passengers. I can't think of an Ordnance weapon in those editions with an AP greater than 3, so the marines not in the transport but in the same formation would also have been vaporized in the explosion of the shell by itself, not to mention the tank around them.



That would have been 3rd ed-ordinance pen 6, kills the vehicle and everybody riding in it-no saves allowed.

Lost a deathwing command squad and a land raider that way to a basilisk. pretty much a game winning single shot. the guy still reminds me about that from time to time.

The explodes rules for passengers in 5th is quite reasonable, if you are inside an enclosed vehicle you roll to wound everybody with a S4 hit (so basically you are taking a bolter round) if it is open topped the explosive force is free to expand out instead of being contained so it is only S3, the same as the blast effect if you are nearby when a vehicle explodes. armor saves are still allowed..

Even though the rhino chassi and predators are both based of the well known m113 APC (an iconic vehicle in use by most militaries of the world when 40K was being designed) it is a far cry from the survivability to passengers afforded by modern armored vehicles like MREPS.

 
   
Made in se
Implacable Skitarii




Sweden

Started in the very end of 3rd. Played IG 3-7, Orks 6-7, Chaos/1ksons 7- the first month of 8th.

The edition that I remember most fondly is 5th. But that could also be nostalgia.

7000 points. Rozth 9th/9th Siege Infantry. CO: Fältöverste Karl Hagan
4000 points. Order of the true Voice. Cult Leader: Sorcerer Ziyad Un-Nefer #AvengeProspero
Praetorian Guard: 1000 points, Huzzah!
Bretonnia: 2000 points (Forever WIP)  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





I was just starting to learn the game at the end of 2nd Ed. when 3rd Ed. dropped. I liked the streamlining overall despite the loss of some character and felt like 4th was a natural progression, incorporating some of 3.5's rules changes. Still, it felt like some things needed work so I very eagerly awaited 5th Ed.

I was very disappointed.

It's not that 5th was bad per se; it was that it seemed GW didn't recognize many issues with its own game. Some things improved for sure, while other things got notably worse. GW was already infamous for swinging the pendulum too far, and had done it again, notably with their vehicle damage charts. In 4th (unless you were a skimmer) vehicles were total death traps. In 5th vehicles became too resilient. My final straw was when GW proclaimed that 5th's new wound allocation method wasn't just better, but it was FASTER than it was in 4th Ed.

You can easily argue there was abuse in 5th's wound allocation system, but one could at least discuss the merit as to whether or not it was better at simulating casualties. But faster? FASTER? Faster than simply having the defender remove casualties?? I realized GW was simply lying to its fans, and that waiting around for GW to fix game mechanics was an exercise in utter futilty.

GW continues to either not recognize game issues or just prefers to move rules laterally for the sake of changing the game and forcing players to buy into the new paradigm. I understand that to some degree; it's a business and it needs to generate revenue. But the middle of 5th is where I got off the rollercoaster. Luckily I play with a closeknit group of friends, so I am not constrained by needing to adapt to the public. Because of this we've have created our own house rules, picking what we like and discarding the rest from subsequent editions.

Our rule set is probably closest to 5th Ed. with some important revisions, including a Reaction Phase for the defender. We've given a facelift to the codices we use and continue to tweak balance and allow for some unique additions in case somebody has an idea for a unit or two. It's an ongoing process, because like any game some odd situation may arise that needs addressing. The nice thing is that we can address it and modify our rules accordingly.
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

3rd edition is my favorite, and in my mind the best the game ever got. Fixing a few codices for balance is literally the only thing I would change.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in nz
Infiltrating Broodlord





R'lyeh

I've stuck with Third Edition. All WD/CA/journal/website material is in play. Houserules or VDR/TMDR for a few newer units.

Currently working on Biggerized Ultramarines using Primaris bodies and classic heads/loadouts (big pics spoilered)

Spoiler:










And the Tyranid menace:


RevlidRas wrote:
The current state of Necrons is all a random lark by the Deceiver, who reprogrammed all the Lords to believe they beat the C'tan aeons ago, replaced their personality engrams with those of unused villains from Brendan Fraser's The Mummy series, coated everything in cheap bling, and even managed to convince them that they actually use clearly satirical units like the Tomb Blades.
 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought






^Nice work on those!

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Nice work on those!

Indeed. the new models look fantastic no matter which edition you use them in. when i first saw the primaris i thought they looked like MKIV maximus suits.

amanita
Every time GW makes a change to an edition or a rule they always say it is BESTEST EVER! even when it is a pendulum swing.

They kinda have to do that to sell or justify the changes.

You mention the claim of making casualty removal faster, they are making the same claim with 9th edition. that it will be faster......even though they have expanded it to have 7 different phases compared to a simple 3 phases in 3rd-5th, or adding the convoluted scoring system that goes up to 100 + extra win points for having a painted army. when the old system of "he who holds the most objectives at the end of the game wins" or secondary win condition of "wipe out your opponent", (or victory/kill points if you just want to brawl) was a much simpler and better system that encouraged play to the end of the game as the odds of a forgone conclusion at the end of turn 2 was unlikely. like it has become in 8th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/02 09:45:25


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: