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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise, I have no nostalgia for RT. I started right as 4th edition launched so RT is a good bit before my time (hell, I wasn't even born yet when it was released). The artwork, sculpting style, painting style, etc. of that era mean nothing for me and I have no particular interest in it, but I am curious to see what the first draft, as it were, of the lore looked like first hand and what the first iteration of the rules played like - I understand the differences and whatnot in theory, but understanding it in practice by actually playing it is a different story.

I myself missed Rogue Trader, as my first 40K was 2nd Ed.

But, the Rogue Trader era is fascinating in terms of game development. And to see 40k’s odd, anarchic “sod it, put it in” early days is, what’s the right word? Fantastic, I guess. Chunks of the modern background come from those heady days, but a lot has been strained and refined over the editions (certainly 2nd Ed was the proper codification of what was in or out).

And there’s a lot to enjoy, even if the rules are barely comprehensible.

1st edition is fun, don't take it too seriously and don't have too many models but its a lot of fun if you approach it to enjoy it and not try to break it

leopard wrote:
1st edition is fun, don't take it too seriously and don't have too many models but its a lot of fun if you approach it to enjoy it and not try to break it

Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau disapproves of this post..

IMO, every 40K player should have played Battle at the Farm at least once.

This pleases Zulthar

 Pacific wrote:
Great that this is being re-printed as the eBay prices have gone insane, and it's a great piece of GW history!

If anyone wants to re-create 'battle for the farm' check out these minis by Kev Adams, who was one of the original Ork mini sculptors.
https://knightmareminiatures.com/category/orcs-and-goblins

Marines are a bit easier to come by, especially if you don't mind stripping some old RTB01s, but I recently pledged for this KS and they have some very nice 'inspired by' Rogue Trader-like minis. I assume they will go on general sale at some point soon.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bequestminiatures/star-rogues-bequest-miniatures-and-spevna-studio?ref=user_menu

Haha, if you can't get hold of the old RTB01's, these wannabe throwbacks were what my old group used back in the day.

https://em4miniatures.com/en-us/products/space-rangers

I bought those once, I couldn't even bring myself to assemble them.

Definitely a 2nd edition start set level of quality!

Possibly a stupid question, but I’ve never been to WH World to see the reprints in person. They’re hardback, correct?

Yup. Hardback, faithful reproductions.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Likewise, I have no nostalgia for RT. I started right as 4th edition launched so RT is a good bit before my time (hell, I wasn't even born yet when it was released). The artwork, sculpting style, painting style, etc. of that era mean nothing for me and I have no particular interest in it, but I am curious to see what the first draft, as it were, of the lore looked like first hand and what the first iteration of the rules played like - I understand the differences and whatnot in theory, but understanding it in practice by actually playing it is a different story.

I myself missed Rogue Trader, as my first 40K was 2nd Ed.

But, the Rogue Trader era is fascinating in terms of game development. And to see 40k’s odd, anarchic “sod it, put it in” early days is, what’s the right word? Fantastic, I guess. Chunks of the modern background come from those heady days, but a lot has been strained and refined over the editions (certainly 2nd Ed was the proper codification of what was in or out).

And there’s a lot to enjoy, even if the rules are barely comprehensible.

I also have no real nostalgio for Rogue Trader, but would buy the feth out of a 2nd ed box set. I was already looking at getting into 2nd ed 40k when 3rd was announced so I jumped into 3rd from the very release, but 2nd is what all the regulars at the FLGS talked about and compared everything to when I was a newbie and I still have some of the 2nd ed codexes, whereas most of the 3rd ed ones have long since been tossed/sold/lost.

I've had some of the RT books over the years, but they're mainly just neat things to look through and read. Still happy to see the old RT books coming back though, even if it's not something I'd personally purchase, but I'm with those hoping for a reprinted 2nd ed box like they did with the made-to-order 3rd starter last year.

I actually wonder if the cardboard compnents are the hangup for 2nd ed, if GW doesn't have those cutting dies still then the cardboard dreadnought might be the most expensive part of the reprint

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup. Hardback, faithful reproductions.

That said, back in the day they did both hard and softback editions of the book.

I'll be picking this and the two Realm of Chaos books up at Warhammer World next week


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yup. Hardback, faithful reproductions.

That said, back in the day they did both hard and softback editions of the book.

Yep, my original copy was a softback...

If they’re in stock there. It’s touch and go!

My current copy is indeed soft back. And I’ve absolutely no idea when that version was first released.

I may order the print to order myself. Hardback is just prettier unto my idiot eyes. And practicing what I preach? It’s nice to have a copy I can peruse without overly worrying about preservation.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If they’re in stock there. It’s touch and go!

My current copy is indeed soft back. And I’ve absolutely no idea when that version was first released.

I may order the print to order myself. Hardback is just prettier unto my idiot eyes. And practicing what I preach? It’s nice to have a copy I can peruse without overly worrying about preservation.

If memory serves, the first print was the softback. Or at least it's the first one I ever saw.

I don't recall ever seeing anything but the softcover here in the States. Fantasy Battles and the Realms of Chaos books were hardcover.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If they’re in stock there. It’s touch and go!

They've already put them aside for me

As someone who hasn't ever played RT but wants to try; I've heard people say it's virtually impossible to play Rogue Trader without many different White Dwarf supplements and at least a couple other books. I am planning on picking this up with the intention of actually trying to play the game. Is that a fool's errand or a chance for some genuine fun with the old system?

 WarlordMoga wrote:
As someone who hasn't ever played RT but wants to try; I've heard people say it's virtually impossible to play Rogue Trader without many different White Dwarf supplements and at least a couple other books. I am planning on picking this up with the intention of actually trying to play the game. Is that a fool's errand or a chance for some genuine fun with the old system?

The book is eminently playable. But it's not a "complete product" in the same sense that current 40k is. It's a toolbox for you to do with it what you will.

ecurtz wrote:
I don't recall ever seeing anything but the softcover here in the States. Fantasy Battles and the Realms of Chaos books were hardcover.

I can personally attest to at least one hardback copy making it’s way to a FLGS in Louisville KY. No clue about distribution as a nation, but at least some made their way over here.

The original RT in the UK was hardback. Softback didn't appear until a few years later, probably when they were selling compendiums of WD articles.

I remember back in the day I had RT, both Realm of Chaos books, the Compendium and the Compilation. There were other WD articles we used too, like the 2-part article that became the Vehicle Manual (128 and 129) and the Space Wolves army list (156).

Old-Four-Arms wrote:

Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau disapproves of this post..

People always bring up Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau as an example of Rogue Trader's ridiculousness, but Inquisitor names are full of references even today (Fyodor Karamazov, Torquemada Coteaz, Emil Darkhammer) and people don't seem to mind.

Santtu wrote:

Old-Four-Arms wrote:

Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau disapproves of this post..

People always bring up Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau as an example of Rogue Trader's ridiculousness, but Inquisitor names are full of references even today (Fyodor Karamazov, Torquemada Coteaz, Emil Darkhammer) and people don't seem to mind.

Maybe I'm dense, but what are these references to?

.

chaos0xomega wrote:


Maybe I'm dense, but what are these references to?

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Tomás de Torquemada, no idea who Darkhammer is referencing.

Im sitting here looking at my copy of the original, purchased alongside the battle manual and vehicle manual during a "blue dot sale" about 2 months before the release of 2nd ed. its getting a bit worn Might have to get one of these.

WarlordMoga wrote:
As someone who hasn't ever played RT but wants to try; I've heard people say it's virtually impossible to play Rogue Trader without many different White Dwarf supplements and at least a couple other books. I am planning on picking this up with the intention of actually trying to play the game. Is that a fool's errand or a chance for some genuine fun with the old system?

To play anything even remotely resembling modern 40k, you’d need a host of White Dwarfs or copy of the Compendium/Astronomicon. BUT, if you want to play a wild, weird sci-fi rpg-ish adventure with a GM, absolutely go for it. I remember doing a campaign as a Rogue Trader building up his forces over various raids and money-making missions. It was fun. But we fudged or made up rules where the book was either unclear or silent.

My friend had the hardback. I never owned the book until much later (but before the oldhammer trend bumped the prices) and even then it was only a used softcover. I do have both of the old hardcover Realm of Chaos books, and I’ll probably pick up the hardcover RT given how often I like to flip through the art.

Most of the RT era books (10 biggest ones anyway) are available REDACTED

I'd think that if one had access to those, hunting for WD copies would be mostly unnecessary?

 Fugazi wrote:

WarlordMoga wrote:
As someone who hasn't ever played RT but wants to try; I've heard people say it's virtually impossible to play Rogue Trader without many different White Dwarf supplements and at least a couple other books. I am planning on picking this up with the intention of actually trying to play the game. Is that a fool's errand or a chance for some genuine fun with the old system?

To play anything even remotely resembling modern 40k, you’d need a host of White Dwarfs or copy of the Compendium/Astronomicon. BUT, if you want to play a wild, weird sci-fi rpg-ish adventure with a GM, absolutely go for it. I remember doing a campaign as a Rogue Trader building up his forces over various raids and money-making missions. It was fun. But we fudged or made up rules where the book was either unclear or silent.

My friend had the hardback. I never owned the book until much later (but before the oldhammer trend bumped the prices) and even then it was only a used softcover. I do have both of the old hardcover Realm of Chaos books, and I’ll probably pick up the hardcover RT given how often I like to flip through the art.

It also depends which era of Rogue Trader. Compendium and Battle Manual both rejigged things quite significantly.

You know what? Rogue Trader was like a game of Kal-Toh. At the beginning it was a glorious mess. Moves were made across its lifetime, each one refining its shape and structure, until it more or less morphed straight in 2nd Ed, which was the final grand tweaking/

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It also depends which era of Rogue Trader. Compendium and Battle Manual both rejigged things quite significantly.

You know what? Rogue Trader was like a game of Kal-Toh. At the beginning it was a glorious mess. Moves were made across its lifetime, each one refining its shape and structure, until it more or less morphed straight in 2nd Ed, which was the final grand tweaking/

Agreed. It really depends on the game you want to play. If you want some kind of battle/mission/squad-based rpg…er, thing jammed with weird ideas, then you want the earlier RT. If you want a few squads against a few squads, you want the later tweaks.

Although I feel a strong nostalgia for RT, I do have to admit that if I want the former, I’d go with the Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy RPG from FFG. If I want the latter, I’d go with 2nd ed. And yet I still recommend the RT book for all the reasons you and others have stated.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
no idea who Darkhammer is referencing.

Émile Durkheim (maybe)