Switch Theme:

So I played a game of 4th ed with a friend  [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 nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Thanks for the summary. Brings back a lot of memories. Second third and fourth we’re best dependent on player partner… second was my fav but 3rd and 4th were great.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Nerak wrote:
The whole game had a much slower pace to it. It also felt much less deadly.
An era when getting a 4th heavy support slot was considered a significant advantage, and when an inquisitor with a few servitors (one plasma cannon) was a viable fire support unit.
I think 3e got a little carried away with the big guns in places (1000pts of DE was 1000pts of lances...), 4e pulled it in, and then 5e gradually ramped it back up.

Depending on factions 5e can be even less deadly in the first turn or so, going second was often a winning strategy though having to castle against pods was tedious.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

One thing to note about previous editions is terrain. It is hard to extrapolate the differences between now and then, but I can definitely say the games I play now utilize a LOT more terrain than 4th edition (or any edition prior to 8th, for that matter).

I wonder what some of the older editions would play like with modern terrain? I don't recall specifics of old terrain rules, but definitely remember boards we played on that would now be called planet bowling ball.

In my opinion, who you game with is generally more important than any single edition in 40K. Having a solid core of players with like minded goals for what you want to get out of the game has made every edition enjoyable. Every edition had significant exploits which could certainly impact the enjoyment if players were not on the same page on how said exploits will be managed (everything is fair game and build the meanest breadstick you can; do we mitigate x, y, and z?; etc...)

The one thing I do remember that I did not like about 4th was the change in Codex design philosophy. The change from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to 4th ed Codex was really not well received in many circles.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 11:00:51


Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sarigar wrote:
I wonder what some of the older editions would play like with modern terrain? I don't recall specifics of old terrain rules, but definitely remember boards we played on that would now be called planet bowling ball.
Some tournaments back then were also criticised for being planet bowling ball, though it was a compromise in 5th in particular as you needed a few LoS blockers but you didn't want to overdo it on the 4+ cover saves or make deepstrikes suicidal.


 Sarigar wrote:
The one thing I do remember that I did not like about 4th was the change in Codex design philosophy. The change from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to 4th ed Codex was really not well received in many circles.
It was certainly dry.

Nothing survived the move to late 4th/5th edition with the old veteran skills and 'abuse your own tradeoffs' rules intact. IIRC Gav Thorpe said something along the lines of the old system being a million options that ultimately resulted in only handful of highly optimized combinations, whereas books that didn't let you twink out your units meant that players could play their prefered models without such a wide gap between the 'good' and the 'bad' options.
And that was 4e chaos to a degree, you could play lash princes and plague marines but the gap back to something like a pure thousand sons list wasn't anything like as large as the gap between 3.5 siren/iron warrior type lists and a 3.5 casual list. It would probably be better remembered if rampant 5e codex creep didn't walk over it (looking at you, Space Wolves).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/01 11:24:59


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

 Sarigar wrote:
One thing to note about previous editions is terrain. It is hard to extrapolate the differences between now and then, but I can definitely say the games I play now utilize a LOT more terrain than 4th edition (or any edition prior to 8th, for that matter).

I wonder what some of the older editions would play like with modern terrain? I don't recall specifics of old terrain rules, but definitely remember boards we played on that would now be called planet bowling ball.

In my opinion, who you game with is generally more important than any single edition in 40K. Having a solid core of players with like minded goals for what you want to get out of the game has made every edition enjoyable. Every edition had significant exploits which could certainly impact the enjoyment if players were not on the same page on how said exploits will be managed (everything is fair game and build the meanest breadstick you can; do we mitigate x, y, and z?; etc...)

The one thing I do remember that I did not like about 4th was the change in Codex design philosophy. The change from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to 4th ed Codex was really not well received in many circles.


It is actually just the opposite the terrain was a lot more important to the game play in previous editions. the main complaint was that tournaments never had enough terrain because they had to transport so much for so many tables.

The attempt to go from nearly zero impact 8th ed terrain to 9th ed terrain makes new players think it was a huge improvement when actually it was a minor step back to previous edition where terrain rules were better and much more involved. directly affecting movement, cover, as well as LOS etc.. . 5th ed terrain rules could go from a 2+ cover save to a 6+ or be difficult, dangerous or impassable.depending on what was out there. but it was much more reliant on the players to make their own terrain. . as GW didn't really start pushing their own terrain products until late 5th ed.

As somebody who regularly still uses 5th ed terrain rules i can say modern terrain would be absolute rubbish if you are talking GWs new stuff as it had no defined borders for area terrain and loads of holes for true LOS. we use terrain mats to keep things fresh because they are modular but my FLG also has pre-made terrain tables (mostlymade for tourneys) that you added terrain to to make the game more interesting.


Here are a few examples

mid 5th ed GW sanctioned GT terrain (or lack there of) table i played on when i still went to those events-

Spoiler:


Compared to our own store tables

4th ed at my first FLGS tabletop (still miss the place)

Remember this was 4th so those templates blocked LOS (also hats off to steve and rags miss you guys )

Spoiler:



And some 5th ed games on custom tables with added terrain in the age before mats

Spoiler:


Spoiler:



Most 3rd and 4th ed codexes were still very focused on the lore in how the armies behaved a few in 5th still retained this kind of direction. As in the first post talked about how your soldiers would behave on this battlefield. using the chaos dex is a bad example. going from the best, most rewarding codex ever made for playing to the lore, to the watered down generic codex that was 4th is hardly a good comparison.

That is why we let players use whichever codex that is compatible (3rd-7th) in our house rules 5th edition games that they feel best represents the lore/rules of the armies they play. as it turns out there are quite a few 3rd and 4th ed codexes on the preferred use list.









This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/07/01 11:56:33




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 aphyon wrote:
Spoiler:


Spoiler:
Both these tables are absurd, but for completely opposite reasons.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

GW seems to consistently sell terrain that is absolute gash for the games they make.

The convoluted 'Obscuring' rule seems to be an attempt to remedy this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 12:04:01


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

I remember GW run events and the lack of terrain was significant.

Forest outlines were very important back then. I don't ever recall playing with that much on a table. I could literally hide my entire army in the one pic with all the forest outlines.

Nowadays, the games I play there is plenty of options to ensure no player can get shot off the table on turn one unless one deploys poorly. It simply could have been the case we just used less terrain back then. I'll dig through some photos to check. I've played through every edition as they were released and it is easy for me to blend editions together, especially 3-4th and 6-7th.



Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

Am I the only one who didn't like terrain rules back then at all?

Flat cover save for standing inside terrain or even just behind your own unit, while there were very little to no weapons (Basilisk I think?) that ignored cover AND were powerful enough to still ignore any decent armor.

Tanks immobilising over every little piece of terrain with a chance of 1 in 6.

Difficult terrain for infantry was alright, dangerous terrain sometimes too.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 aphyon wrote:
 Sarigar wrote:
One thing to note about previous editions is terrain. It is hard to extrapolate the differences between now and then, but I can definitely say the games I play now utilize a LOT more terrain than 4th edition (or any edition prior to 8th, for that matter).

I wonder what some of the older editions would play like with modern terrain? I don't recall specifics of old terrain rules, but definitely remember boards we played on that would now be called planet bowling ball.

In my opinion, who you game with is generally more important than any single edition in 40K. Having a solid core of players with like minded goals for what you want to get out of the game has made every edition enjoyable. Every edition had significant exploits which could certainly impact the enjoyment if players were not on the same page on how said exploits will be managed (everything is fair game and build the meanest breadstick you can; do we mitigate x, y, and z?; etc...)

The one thing I do remember that I did not like about 4th was the change in Codex design philosophy. The change from the 3.5 Chaos Codex to 4th ed Codex was really not well received in many circles.


It is actually just the opposite the terrain was a lot more important to the game play in previous editions. the main complaint was that tournaments never had enough terrain because they had to transport so much for so many tables.

The attempt to go from nearly zero impact 8th ed terrain to 9th ed terrain makes new players think it was a huge improvement when actually it was a minor step back to previous edition where terrain rules were better and much more involved. directly affecting movement, cover, as well as LOS etc.. . 5th ed terrain rules could go from a 2+ cover save to a 6+ or be difficult, dangerous or impassable.depending on what was out there. but it was much more reliant on the players to make their own terrain. . as GW didn't really start pushing their own terrain products until late 5th ed.



My personal recollection from terrain in 5th was that it (and also 6th and possibly 7th) were editions in which GW presented a huge, convoluted mess of terrain rules and types and traits, and the players simply picked the one that provided the most impact for the least effort to remember. Usually "Everything Is Ruins."

I do not recall 2+ cover saves being a potential thing in 5th edition purely from the terrain alone - are you talking like, if I have a unit of Eldar Rangers or Space Marine Scouts I could get into terrain and thru their rules get a 2+? Because I very much recall the complaint with terrain in 5th was "what's the point of terrain, I play Marines and Cover saves are always worse than my 3+ save." Or was there actually a terrain type like "ultra hardened bunkers that give a 2+ cover save". I just remember Forest = 5+, Ruin = 4+.


As an Ork player, I LOVED terrain because I was I2 and basically never got to fight first anyway so charging into terain without Stikkbombs wasn't an issue usually but terrain provided me with a 4+ save when I was essentially not getting any save otherwise. But I believe 'terrain as modifier' came into effect precisely because of this complaint with the MEQ players and terrain not being impactful usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Am I the only one who didn't like terrain rules back then at all?

Flat cover save for standing inside terrain or even just behind your own unit, while there were very little to no weapons (Basilisk I think?) that ignored cover AND were powerful enough to still ignore any decent armor.

Tanks immobilising over every little piece of terrain with a chance of 1 in 6.

Difficult terrain for infantry was alright, dangerous terrain sometimes too.


I do miss my personal favorite rule to make fun of: "Eyeing the Terrain". When you rolled a d6 to see what your movement would be if you were going to move into terrain, and you could actually roll low enough that you don't get to go in the terrain the explanation was "you're eyeing the terrain."

........and then your squad would always get exploded because they didnt make it into cover. Starting your move 2" from cover and rolling a 1 for your difficult terrain rule, one of the truly classic Womp Womp moments, lost to time like tears in rain...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 12:11:04


"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 gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

In general I find the old edition's combination of cover, armour, and AP quite unsatisfying.

9th's system is a definite improvement, although I've not had a lot of experience with 9th's cover rules to really say.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

How about these


Spoiler:



Spoiler:


I do not recall 2+ cover saves being a potential thing in 5th edition purely from the terrain alone - are you talking like, if I have a unit of Eldar Rangers or Space Marine Scouts I could get into terrain and thru their rules get a 2+? Because I very much recall the complaint with terrain in 5th was "what's the point of terrain, I play Marines and Cover saves are always worse than my 3+ save." Or was there actually a terrain type like "ultra hardened bunkers that give a 2+ cover save". I just remember Forest = 5+, Ruin = 4+.


Bunkers were a 3+ but modifiers like (tech marine) fortification, cammo cloaks, cammo netting, stealth, shrouding etc could boost it by +1 or +2, of course it ddin't matter if something got close to you with a flamer or an artillery piece that ignores cover.

There were also quite a few weapons in the game where marines needed cover saves especially against, chaos eldar and imperial guard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 12:23:46




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Virtually unplayable. That second one especially.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

They are nice tables for a showcase, but I wouldn't want to play on them.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Virtually unplayable. That second one especially.


Our DKOK players love that second table. for obvious reasons.

We do not always use as much LOS blocking i am trying to find a good pic of our rocky desert table.

Found one, we were playing dust but we use the same sort of setup for 40K


Spoiler:

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/07/01 12:37:07




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Personally I find 9th ed's terrain system to be good, but a bit overly fiddly. The AOS 3.0 terrain system in my opinion is absolutely ideal. With a little bit of a boost up to account for the increased deadliness of 40k's ranged weaponry, it'd be the best terrain system 40k has ever had.

It's got everything I love:

1) abstracted building terrain that works like entering and exiting a transport vehicle, and which conveys a drawback in addition to a powerful benefit (units taking shelter in fortified positions are no longer operating at peak offensive efficiency)

2) Quick, easy to resolve verification of whether or not terrain interferes with the shot, due to being based on 'the shortest possible line that can be drawn between the bases/hulls' instead of TLOS or every possible line that can be drawn

3) Just three different terrain traits, which stack up - standard cover for +1sv, Dense cover for -1 to hit, and Defensible cover for both, and each layer has the rules of all previous layers so you can claim regular cover from a Defensible structure (by standing nearby and behind it, for example) or standard cover from a Dense cover piece, or suffer the penalty from Dense cover for firing thru a defensible piece.

No need to track a billion terrain traits, much more usable by most unit types, and real decision points as a player where taking advantage of a lot of terrain feature traits involves reducing your own offensive power in some way.

"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 gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I really like that "shortest line" approach, how does that work for squads?
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I really like that "shortest line" approach, how does that work for squads?


Each firing model to closest enemy model in target unit - just like you do when you draw range for the squad when firing their guns.

if that line passes thru any terrain piece that the target unit is within 2" of - +1 to sv
If that line passes thru any dense cover terrain (which includes Defensible pieces as well) - -1 to hit
If that line passes thru 3" or more of dense/defensible - line of sight is blocked for the attack.

And if a unit enters a Defensible terrain piece to garrison it, you now draw your line of sights to the terrain piece instead of the unit, and the unit gets both -1 to hit and +1 to sv.

The biggest adjustment from 9th is that entering Defensible basically takes you off the battlefield, so you cant use strats, secure objectives etc, it's a huge defensive buff but you're not going to be using the squad to hose people off with your sick strat/reroll combo wombos, and there's no way to benefit from Dense without also suffering the penalty yourself. If you're in the woods, you only don't suffer -1 to hit by shooting out if you move up to the very edge of the woods (in which case, an enemy firing back at you would not be doing so at -1 to hit, you'd just be claiming standard +1sv cover)

After an initial reaction upon reading it of 'ew, I don't like any of that' when I actually tried it in game I REALLY enjoyed how it played on the table, and the way it incentivised playing in a way that felt natural and not game-y which was the very first time I'd ever felt that about a 40k terrain system. After editions of "oooh I just gotta get the very last model to fit with its toe touching the base surrounding this building and then I get Cover!!!" it was very nice to approach a terrain piece and go

"Ok, I have 3 options - stand my unit behind this cover, and protect them from shooting but they can't shoot. Or I can enter the cover, gain -1 to hit and +1 to sv but I can't do my offensive stuff, or I can walk around the cover and unleash my maximum offense but gain no additional defenses."

"Ok, I've got a piece of Dense Cover - I can walk out to the edge, get +1 to sv, and hit at normal BS, or I can get my squad inside it, suffer -1 to hit myself but get -1 to hit +1sv, or I can stay behind it, and be out of LOS"

Worked fantastically with 9th edition's numerous different objectives and secondaries and actions and such.

"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 gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I don't like that it's impossible to benefit from cover whilst not being affected by it yourself.
Logically a unit should be able to stand behind a barricade and shoot over it without it obscuring their vision.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

I located some older photos. I think any photos of 3rd edition are not digitally saved and in print, haha.

Terrain back then, from my experience, was much more sparse than tables I play today.

The first 5 photos are from the old Ard Boyz and an Endless Games GT (4th or 5th edition, IIRC) and an in house game with a buddy and his Cobra themed IG. The last photo was from a tourney in Atlanta during 6th edition.

[Thumb - Vs. Tyranids.jpg]

[Thumb - VS Cobra IG.jpg]

[Thumb - Endless Games GT.jpg]

[Thumb - Endless Games GT Tables.jpg]

[Thumb - Ard Boyz Game 2 (keeping the distance).jpg]

[Thumb - 2014 6th Edition.jpg]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 13:23:29


Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That last one is passable. The rest are planet bowling ball.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That last one is passable. The rest are planet bowling ball.
The first one wouldn't be terrible, that scenery in the middle would probably block all LoS to normal sized 3e-5e infantry.

Less of a fan of the corner buildings with an empty killing zone between them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 14:11:59


 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

 the_scotsman wrote:
Personally I find 9th ed's terrain system to be good, but a bit overly fiddly. The AOS 3.0 terrain system in my opinion is absolutely ideal. With a little bit of a boost up to account for the increased deadliness of 40k's ranged weaponry, it'd be the best terrain system 40k has ever had.

It's got everything I love:

1) abstracted building terrain that works like entering and exiting a transport vehicle, and which conveys a drawback in addition to a powerful benefit (units taking shelter in fortified positions are no longer operating at peak offensive efficiency)

2) Quick, easy to resolve verification of whether or not terrain interferes with the shot, due to being based on 'the shortest possible line that can be drawn between the bases/hulls' instead of TLOS or every possible line that can be drawn

3) Just three different terrain traits, which stack up - standard cover for +1sv, Dense cover for -1 to hit, and Defensible cover for both, and each layer has the rules of all previous layers so you can claim regular cover from a Defensible structure (by standing nearby and behind it, for example) or standard cover from a Dense cover piece, or suffer the penalty from Dense cover for firing thru a defensible piece.

No need to track a billion terrain traits, much more usable by most unit types, and real decision points as a player where taking advantage of a lot of terrain feature traits involves reducing your own offensive power in some way.
Honestly, that's pretty much how we play the terrain at our shop. We use lines from bases instead of "TLOS", and I've actually come around to using the Obscuring rule to extend to the entire terrain base footprint. It particularly helps vehicles actually use cover. It makes up for situations where 'the edge of my base can just see the edge of yours' because getting around that intervening basing actually demands the models be pretty exposed to each other; otherwise, even if they can see the butt of your tank, it will often still be obscured.

In practice, I don't think 9th's terrain keywords are hard to remember. Most things are ruins, barricades, craters, or forests, and the sum of their keywords makes them work exactly like you expect. Forests are defensible, slowing, and dense, instead of obscuring or light cover. Craters are light cover and slowing, but not defensible or anything else. Barricades are the most complicated, but again they work exactly like you'd expect: they only give cover if they're intervening and you're not standing on top, they're defensible and slowing, and they have that nifty "engagement range is 2" to models behind it" so you can fight over it.

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't like that it's impossible to benefit from cover whilst not being affected by it yourself.
Logically a unit should be able to stand behind a barricade and shoot over it without it obscuring their vision.


it can. Standard cover and Defensible cover works like that. The only thing that doesn't is Dense cover - which is basically the type of cover that provides protection by making it difficult to see through. So if you're not standing at the edge of the tangled vine forest or whatever and looking out, you suffer the -1 to hit as youre just as much affected by it as the opposing unit that's trying to see you.

And you do still claim standard Cover from being in defensible terrain, even if you move right to the edge to maximise your offense. You just dont claim both standard cover AND dense.

mostly, I just like the interplay of options, and I like the fact that terrain isn't just a thing that only works for INFANTRY and BEAST models - because god knows vehicles could use a little extra protection right now, LOL. The only thing Vehicles/monsters can't do is Garrison, and FLYERS/TITANIC ignore and are ignored by Dense (which because Dense and Obscuring are kind of combined, means you can't hide from or hide flyers and titanic units unless you're truly out of LOS - they're too tall, they can see you.

Every terrain system is going to involve some abstraction and some moments that dont quite seem to make perfect sense, but there's a lot that the AOS 3.0 modified system gets rid of that was a major gripe of mine in 8th and still in 9th. No more 'everyone can see me now the second I touch my toe to the terrain feature', no more 'sorry, your tank that's 99% obscured in a perfect hull down position is essentially the same as if it was sitting in the open', no more 'gotta carefully place every single model and measure every movement up and down in this rickity ruin that can just barely fit all my models in an incredibly complex coherency puzzle' and a lot of issues it kind of organically solves. All dense and defensible being effectively obscuring if you pass over more than 3" means that ALMOST every one of those bs 'i can see your antenna from my antenna across the board' LOS calls just fail instantly, and drawing the shortest line from model A to model B usually means nobody's firing all their guns out of the back rear corner of a tread to draw line of sight to a target.

The biggest thing you have to kind of wave your hands and imagine is when you've got a close combat involving a unit garrisoned in a building. As you move your models in the attacking unit such that theyre all within fight range of the building, you kind of have to imagine that they're trying to climb up walls and break down doors and climb through windows to get at the enemy unit inside, rather than them all lining up to punch the building.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 18:24:59


"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
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

A.T. wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That last one is passable. The rest are planet bowling ball.
The first one wouldn't be terrible, that scenery in the middle would probably block all LoS to normal sized 3e-5e infantry.

Less of a fan of the corner buildings with an empty killing zone between them.


That was what I generally played in multiple venues a decade or so back. The GW events (GTs and RTTs at Games Days) had even less. I look at modern boards now and wonder how we even played on older boards.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Sarigar wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That last one is passable. The rest are planet bowling ball.
The first one wouldn't be terrible, that scenery in the middle would probably block all LoS to normal sized 3e-5e infantry.

Less of a fan of the corner buildings with an empty killing zone between them.


That was what I generally played in multiple venues a decade or so back. The GW events (GTs and RTTs at Games Days) had even less. I look at modern boards now and wonder how we even played on older boards.


Maybe...you couldn't wipe the other guy from across the table in older editions with the ease you can today?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Mira Mesa

Nah, they called 5e Imperial Guard artillery spam the "leaf blower" for a reason. Totally tabling your opponent in a couple turns was absolutely possible. Granted, it got famous after a serious of tournaments with less terrain, but that's more to my point.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't like that it's impossible to benefit from cover whilst not being affected by it yourself.
Logically a unit should be able to stand behind a barricade and shoot over it without it obscuring their vision.


Barricades are obstacles and you need to be within 3" of obstacles to receive the benefit of cover. In general the rules for barricades are rather complicated, but make perfect sense for how barricades should work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
the famous leaf blower list which by unkown reason was only famous in the US and never made it into EU meta (might be because of different scenario design, or terrain or different lists of other factions, or all together)




I faced multiple leafblower lists at that time, I specifically had deff koptas in my tournament list just to shake manticores. Some of those players still talk about the glory times of imperial artillery while looking at their now worthless hydras with teary eyes.

On the other hand, we had almost no longfang spamming space wolves here, which seemed to be the bane of everyone here on dakka until GK were released.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/02 06:26:44


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Dakka Veteran





I'm enjoying this thread's transition to nostalgic terrain talk across multiple eras/editions of the game.

"More terrain = better game" has been true of every edition, but the planet bowling ball paradigm lasted a long time. I think the sea change came when GW began producing and selling actual substantial terrain kits. When I started playing in 3rd the official terrain offerings were, like, a group of 3-4 trees that were provided unbased, and were only slightly taller than an infantry model, and a set of ruins corners that got up to Dreadnought-height for at least a fraction of their (puny) perimeter.

Nothing LoS-blocking, nothing with a default footprint, nothing with impressive height... if you wanted that kind of terrain you generally had to scratch build it. If you wanted enough for a tournament, you'd have to find builders (and funders) to make it happen on that scale. I sort of doubt that any WH tournament in the world had adequate terrain prior to the Cities of Death releases, whatever year that was (and even those kits were imperfect in combination with their edition of origin, since they didn't fully block LoS).

I do kind of miss the prevalence of homemade scenery, and I wish GW included more generic/nature pieces in their lines, but the ease of getting a decent board put together has advanced pretty far in the last 10-15 years.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: