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.

With all the speculation regarding GWs announcement regarding some unspecified Index choices being relegated to non-tournament play, is anyone more strongly considering returning to an older edition or possibly more seriously considering a fan-made “9th Age” style game format?

I’ve seen a few different attempts to fix things that are generally considered problematic. People playing with alternating activations, D10s/12s for greater granularity to balance units and some greater overhauls to the system. I would put it in terms of Call of Duty, I think they really topped out with Modern Warfare 2 and would love a remaster of that game, just a couple of tweaks and then every single map released for all the Modern Wafare games.

In that vein, I really liked the customization available in the 3rd Edition (I believe, please correct me if I’m wrong) codices but haven’t played enough editions to know best what edition rule set might fill my needs. So, if you’re less inclined to seriously seek out fan made options, what would be your preferred combination of rule set and codices and why?

**EDIT** For clarification and furthering the discussion for those who have not read into the thread as yet.

For those who seem to understand what I'm getting at, as admittedly my OP wasn't the clearest, Maybe I should break things down a bit more:

What rule set would you prefer to have for the breakdowns of troop types?

Would you prefer...
-5th for vehicles?
-8th for Characters/HQ?
-3rd for Troops?

If a fan-made rule set was to be made, how would you structure the basics according to editions? With the obvious caveat that some points and rules tweaks would be in order to balance the amalgamation of rule sets. The overall idea would be total inclusivity of past and future units with updates for new units as they come out.

Returning wholesale to a previous edition would:
*Mean that we'd lose access to more recent cool models - the exact problem people with Index units (might) face now, just in reverse.
*Mean that we'd have to house-rule those newer models a stat block.
*Make joining a new group rather difficult as you'd have to relearn/learn who-knows how many versions + changes.

In the end? For the duration of the edition I think it'd just be best if the only time you paid attention to GWs (or anyone elses) tourney rules/suggestions when you were actually in a tourney.

ccs wrote:
In the end? For the duration of the edition I think it'd just be best if the only time you paid attention to GWs (or anyone elses) tourney rules/suggestions when you were actually in a tourney.

Except those are generally accepted elsewhere either. I would bet most play 1500 or 2000 pts matched play with Ro3 in use for example. Guess what? Tournament rules.

Looking back at older editions, I might be tempted to play 5th again, or 4th with something other than Guard (a seriously nonfunctional army in that edition), but probably not any others. Absolutely not 6th or 7th ever again, nothing of value was lost when that particular era ended (and GW's loss of market share proved it rather decisively). 3rd had a lot of wonkiness that I'm not sure I'd want to deal with in general, playing 2E or RT is essentially a different game entirely.

An increasingly large problem with older editions is that so much new stuff has come out that there's no rules for, and no scale to fit a lot of it, so lots of people's collections don't necessarily work, you lose a lot more going back to any significantly older edition than you gain from retaining any sunsetting Index units. In some ways thats not necessarily a bad thing, but does narrow a lot of things.

As much as I'd like to say I'd want to consider playing a fan-made 9th age format, unless there was significant local support and a venue behind it, can't say I'd be terribly interested.

5th modified

From a technical perspective, IMO 5th edition has been the best to date, although it needed some tweaking to wound allocation and the vehicle rules.

Having said that, I'm currently setting things up to revisit 2nd edition with a mate. It was clunky and silly, but was, for us, the most fun edition.

And yes, that will mean making up some house rules for things that didn't exist back then, like my Thunderwolves. Vehicle variants are slightly easier, since Dark Millenium have points values for swapping weapons in and out...

Looking forward to a nostalgic tire kicking.

 insaniak wrote:
From a technical perspective, IMO 5th edition has been the best to date, although it needed some tweaking to wound allocation and the vehicle rules.

I've played around with a few 5e re-writes, there is a fair bit of work involved in cost matching the books for vehicles and wargear but 4e costed rhinos/razorbacks/chimeras takes the bite out of the parking lot lists when using pre-5e books with the 5e system.

A lot of missing units with the 4e books though. I'd personally retrofit a consolidated DH/WH codex rather than trying to fix the grey knights and roll all other marine books towards the 5e marine costing structure. Orks, Daemons, Nids, DE, Eldar, and Tau need general balancing and updates while newcrons and 5e guard are more work.

I was playing 3rd last week since it's the furthest I could get from 3rd while still having access to basic units of most factions, and even some Forgeworld stuff.

It was a ton of fun and my friends and I will definitely be playing more. Getting to see your 8E units in a completely different game system is a fantastic experience.

ccs wrote:
Returning wholesale to a previous edition would:
*Mean that we'd lose access to more recent cool models - the exact problem people with Index units (might) face now, just in reverse.
*Mean that we'd have to house-rule those newer models a stat block.
*Make joining a new group rather difficult as you'd have to relearn/learn who-knows how many versions + changes.

In the end? For the duration of the edition I think it'd just be best if the only time you paid attention to GWs (or anyone elses) tourney rules/suggestions when you were actually in a tourney.

Or in some peoples case they get full armies back.... like Corsiars

I fell out of love with 40K around 6th edition, 5th was my favourite so far for all that it had it's weird quirks.

Have not tried 8th, in fairness, but it does not look like my kind of game.

I am really interested in playing Grimdark Future with my models and am working on getting some very easy intro game set ups made for my role playing friends who have never played a wargame. Grimdark Future has the advantage of staying current with releases from GW, being very simple and therefore easy to houserule if there are any issues, and also including fan favourites like Space Dwarves.

Try 8th before you decide if it's for you or not

 Amishprn86 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Returning wholesale to a previous edition would:
*Mean that we'd lose access to more recent cool models - the exact problem people with Index units (might) face now, just in reverse.
*Mean that we'd have to house-rule those newer models a stat block.
*Make joining a new group rather difficult as you'd have to relearn/learn who-knows how many versions + changes.

In the end? For the duration of the edition I think it'd just be best if the only time you paid attention to GWs (or anyone elses) tourney rules/suggestions when you were actually in a tourney.

Or in some peoples case they get full armies back.... like Corsiars

Feelsbad in renegades and heretics.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Feelsbad in renegades and heretics.

Renegades and heretics... 603pts for nine earthshakers and 108 wounds at toughness 7, or 360pts for 12 quad launchers putting out 48 S5 blast markers per turn _as troops choices_ capable of firing into ongoing close combat.
For those times when 5e guard gunlines didn't have enough dakka.

I don't get the OPs point, GW is moving some old units they no longer produce into legends, (thus giving a bare minimum amount of support for something that realisticly would have been squatted even not that long ago) the down side is legends units won't likely be alowed in tournies, so his solution is to play an older edition... which likely won't be supported by any tournies?

I thought 3rd was the best edition and would definitely play it again, just getting rid of rubbish like variable charge ranges, guaranteed deepstrike, overwatch, moving out of combat with no penalty etc. would be great.

I think Legends is a good thing for 8th though, cool units like Ork buggies and rough riders that have fallen out of favour will have freely available rules which is great!

A.T. wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Feelsbad in renegades and heretics.

Renegades and heretics... 603pts for nine earthshakers and 108 wounds at toughness 7, or 360pts for 12 quad launchers putting out 48 S5 blast markers per turn _as troops choices_ capable of firing into ongoing close combat.
For those times when 5e guard gunlines didn't have enough dakka.

Wrong, that was in 7th formation cancer with the vraks supplement to renegades. And the purge formation.
Which were broken to the point of idioticy.

No i just want the IA 13 or vraks list propperly back.

I'd go back to 5th edition, might be a bit rose-tinted but I seriously enjoyed that edition over 6th/7th, and 8th just doesn't give the same feel.

A few wonky things in 5th edition would need to be worked out but overall I'd be happy to play that again.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Wrong, that was in 7th formation cancer with the vraks supplement to renegades. And the purge formation.
Which were broken to the point of idioticy.

That was without the formation rules (purge gave persistent templates on top of all the rest), but it was 7e era 'balance'.

I remember there being an intermediary R&H update but couldn't find the file.

BrianDavion wrote:
the down side is legends units won't likely be alowed in tournies, so his solution is to play an older edition... which likely won't be supported by any tournies?

Does sound rather like and unhelpful approach, doesnt it.

If you wanted to play an older edition, because older models are being relegated to "non-tournament", surely sticking with the current edition and not playing tournaments is just the same thing, only you already have rules and dont have to make up your own.

Would seem more logical to make sure you play with people that let you use Legends in their games, rather than those that start braying like a bunch of Beastmen about "recommendations being absolute rules in all non-Tournament games".

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't get the OPs point, GW is moving some old units they no longer produce into legends, (thus giving a bare minimum amount of support for something that realisticly would have been squatted even not that long ago) the down side is legends units won't likely be alowed in tournies, so his solution is to play an older edition... which likely won't be supported by any tournies?

Depends on community. Fans got pissed at GW and made FB 9th edition on their own producing superior product that is now played in tournaments.

Would be nice for players to say screw it for GW and take over rule producing. Maybe get something even remotely decent ruleset eventually.

It's ironic that all the people who want to play their "fluffy" units are suddenly tournament players who are concerned with their list being legal in the most competitive setting.

tneva82 wrote:

ccs wrote:
In the end? For the duration of the edition I think it'd just be best if the only time you paid attention to GWs (or anyone elses) tourney rules/suggestions when you were actually in a tourney.

Except those are generally accepted elsewhere either. I would bet most play 1500 or 2000 pts matched play with Ro3 in use for example. Guess what? Tournament rules.

Ultimately it is about finding friends who are willing to play and share the same vision you have for the game. As individuals stuck on this galaxy travelling mothball it comes down to us to find like minded individuals to share a story or two. To establish camaraderie with other journeying souls and experience the deep sense of wonder life can provide when you look in the right places.

For life is nothing without fellow travelers willing to take to the road alongside with us.

 Ishagu wrote:
It's ironic that all the people who want to play their "fluffy" units are suddenly tournament players who are concerned with their list being legal in the most competitive setting.

It isn't like the tournament suggestions have also impacted casual or is that not the case?

If so, which it is, how about go to another thread instead of bothering this one?

Some have, plenty have not.

Nothing is stopping people from arranging and discussing a game in non-tournament settings.

Fictional wrote:
Would seem more logical to make sure you play with people that let you use Legends in their games, rather than those that start braying like a bunch of Beastmen about "recommendations being absolute rules in all non-Tournament games".

Problem is that you assume people wanting to play with same ruleset are braying like bunch of beastmen. But thing is people want to play on same page. If players are playing on different rules then that's kind of hard to play then. Ergo pickup games tends to be under standard rules. Easiest which is tournament rules. If you want to play under non-tournament rules it's basically having to set up ahead. If you go to FLGS and pick up random game often opponent has tournament styled army because that's the general standard. So you wanting different standard is not convenient. Army list needs to be changed. He might not even have models with him to suit that if he just took his standard army with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:


Nothing is stopping people from arranging and discussing a game in non-tournament settings.

Yes. good if you know in advance. If you show up at FLGS and want pick up game? That's then going to take time. And not everybody has unlimited time so that eats time. I have ~3h max to play. Period. No going over. And that's assuming opponent shows up when I show or is there already. 8th ed(being slowest edition GW has ever done) not being fast it means I'm not happy about having to spend time hashing up in advance under what bloody ruleset we are supposed to be playing. Then work out army list. Then start playing. Fun fun fun. Valuable time ticking away. And when that 3h comes up I'm out there. Doesn't matter what stage game is when I have to pack up.

 Ishagu wrote:
Try 8th before you decide if it's for you or not

Nah, I had a read through it and watched some games, I am happy with my choice. I think my choice will suit my needs better. In any case, I do not have anyone to play with and would have to rebase my collection to play against strangers, so it is not really an option. I think 8th is over complicated to teach new people, so I would rather a simpler game.

Amusingly enough, most of the folks who complain about 8th seem to think it's too simple ("unbalanced" is another common complaint).

I think 8th looks like it is a lot better than what came before it, and it is probably a pretty fun game. But it isn't really my thing.
I am not hating on it.
6th and 7th kicked me out of the GW bubble and now that I am outside I feel less like I "have" to play 40K with my 40K minis, and am more interested in finding something that is closer to exactly what I want.

I would go back to 3rd or 5th edition and play either of those, though with cleaned up codices. For example, I have no interest in playing on a table with 5th edition grey knights or space wolves if they aren't tweaked back into line with the rest of the armies. I got really tired of the color grey back then, and not grey plastic, but everyone running grey knights or space wolves because of their power level compared to everything else.

 Ishagu wrote:
It's ironic that all the people who want to play their "fluffy" units are suddenly tournament players who are concerned with their list being legal in the most competitive setting.

This is because the competitive scene impacts what is played in casual. If people have the models, they want to play them in the most recent iteration of the rules, fluffy and competitive players share this. I wouldn't call that ironic.

I've been to quite a few gaming clubs now and I don't think I've encountered anyone who didn't want to play with the most recent rules, but that's anecdotal, and doesn't hold up to much.