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
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

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, but 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.

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)
.flyer rules(7th+5th/forge world flyer rules)-jump units can assault, -12" range penalty for guns, immobilize result= destroyed
.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)
.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.)



This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2020/10/26 04:43:48


 
   
Made in it
Stormin' Stompa




Italy

3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.

The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Blackie wrote:
3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.

The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.


Exactly this ^
   
Made in za
Regular Dakkanaut



South Africa

 Blackie wrote:
3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.

The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.


I agree with this.

During...6 th? I hodge podged a system with 3rd, 4th and some 2nd to have things like tanks being able to move and shoot guns on a sliding scale of speed, having armour ratings, having squads be able to split up tactically into fire teams, having HW teams able to split off, having some modified assault rules to lessen CC, but introducing more sustained fire dice to speed up shooting - which I recall made things much more binary unfortunately. It was slightly more a mash up of WH40K and Space Crusade with some more modern (for the time) elements.

I wish I'd kept it. It wouldn't have been any good but could have been an interesting talking point.

I was more proud of my Epic games played with WH40K minis. Each figure was X number of troops. Yeah each one now needed counters but it worked out ok-ish.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/06/29 07:27:36


KBK 
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

I have a model collection that extends back to RT days. Due to some bad experiences, I stopped playing in 2E; the rest of my friends stopped when 3E dropped.

I continued to collect models here and there (primarily a Tau army, and starters to keep up with the rules), but didn't get back into full swing until the Necron rerelease at the tail end of 5th.

Overall, of all the rulesets, I'll take 8th, with a few tweaks.

- Alternating Activations
- 1,000 to 1,250 pts.
- No superheavies
- No named characters

The games I've played have been tense and fun, but my primary opponent - my son - has drifted off to other games, and I'm back to collecting for the hell of it. After a few years down the road, I may end up finally selling the majority of my models and just keeping a token bit that I really enjoy, as ruleswise I have so many other games that are far more interesting than 40K.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Deleted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/04 23:40:31


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





It wasn't the core rules that I liked so much about 2nd, it was how well the armies represented their factions in the lists.

Modern Eldar are a conceptual shadow of their 2nd ed selves (not their rules as there were a few abusable bits). The army played like it should. A farseer wasn't the lynchpin of the army like it is now. Exarchs and warlocks were the heroes they should be.

Veteran marines were actually better than normal marines, as the profile allowed fhis.


For me, I would keep most of 2nd Ed core rules except the following:

Sustained fire - remove the dice as it was time consuming and abnormally high jamming.

BS WS and I. I would have made these opposed values - initiative being what a unit used to oppose WS and BS. This way BS would scale beyond 5 more effectively.

Simplified melee - the aforementioned opposed to initiative, using the 8th s vs t table.

Simplified blast rules, jump pack rules and the other unnecessarily complex rules.

Simplified dice (no d&d dice).

8th Ed vehicle rules (which are based on some old 1st ed rules)

Basically if you remember the specialist games edition of necromunda, I think they did most things right in simplifying the 2nd Ed rules.

Except the WS BS vs I thing, those necromunda rules are pretty close to what I want.



   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





7th, if you cut down on the bollocks formations and tone down the lists a bit can be very enjoyable funnily enough.


overall though 5th is also still very liked, but it shows it age and it is kinda difficult to reverse implement newer units.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

 Blackie wrote:


The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.


Our group actually likes those because it adds immersion to the game.

tanks being able to move and shoot guns on a sliding scale of speed


That is basically what we do with the 4th ed vehicles moving more at the cost of less accurate shooting to avoid getting hit in CC we just combined it with snap fire. so the vehicle can still shoot even at full speed(not flat out) but only hitting on 6+ to represent inaccurate fire. the slower they go the more guns can shoot at normal BS.


it is kinda difficult to reverse implement newer units.


Do you have some examples? i haven't seen any before 8th changed the entire game that were a problem.

I'm using the mechanicus in 5th and it is a 7th ed codex, have not seen a problem yet.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 08:29:18


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





Lord discordant comes to mind. but that is 8th, aswell as R&H through IA13, which came out in 7th and whilest fun and balanced there if you ignore formations (IMPORTANT) they do tend to overperform a bit against armies off 5th.

The lord discordant is doubly annoying though:
Especially if you want to use him for the fact that he should enable Daemonengines he is kinda required to have his aura and they do bite a bit with the IC rules (course as a vehicle he isn't, common sense and that but there's also the fact that he is priced extremely competitve for 8th and 8th was an edition in which many armies got alot cheaper pts wise compared to the older ones.) that are around in 5th.


Also point cost is a bit iffy because how do you place it compared to other units that existed and those that didn't.

Another issue is if you have factions that only got updated all 3 -4 editions like R&H, granted the rules are easily convertable because of the fact that 5-7th basically have the same rough framework but it still can be an issue to reverse implement factions that way.

Not a big one just one to be aware off.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





@OP:
Nice thread. Will post soon some substantial stuff here.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





washington state USA

@not online
That's easily fixed. if a USR that was added in say 7th (you are right formations were a cancer) does not exist in 5th it does not exist, ignore it./adjust it to be a USR in 5th (all 2 1/4 pages for a total of 22).

For example dunestrider adds 3" to movement and charge ranges. since there is standardized movement and all charge ranges are universally 6" or 12" (beast and cavalry) in 5th, they just replace dunestrider with fleet of foot/claw. as it is supposed to represent a units ability to traverse terrain.

As for points aberration. 5th edition core rules take over. for example the 3rd/3.5 chaos codex and marine codex makes them pay extra for grenades, the 5th ed codexes gives them all for free. so you use the later ignore points for grenades. Since this is fun casual play as long as points are close it doesn't have to be exact.

It is also more thematic. we all know every marine is going to be issued grenades. going a few points over because of codex diversion isn't a major issue.

The game play results have been positive in my experience.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 09:53:58


 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





oh absolutely, but there is a in issue with certain factions having skipped between power massivly in only 2 updated instances.

R&H f.e. had a free PDF from early 4th, and later only showed up in IA13, both beeing massively different and having massive isues with balance associated, however , going the extra mile and balancing the unit is worth it.

We adopted a non-formation 7th with houserules for modifying USR salad etc, and attempted to rebalance some of the points, aswell as allies.
And it was worth the work, especialy compared to late stage 8th becoming not disimilar in many ways to 7th late stage with formation issues and other rather amusing things like Taudar.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 10:12:07


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought




Nottingham

Favourite editions: 5th/8th.
My "local" is pretty diverse. If I wanted an older system, I could probably get it, if I wanted it.
Play 8th, with house rules of generally ignoring subfaction abilities, or really anything beyond the core datasheets and faction stratagems. If I went back to 5th, I wouldn't be keeping templates and vehicle facings. A feature I did like of 5th was all power weapons just being *power weapon*, and it's something I'd like from 8th/9th - no difference between axes, swords, mauls and spears.

Formations were fun, but the bonuses were too good. Putting it into an 8th/9th framework, just giving an extra CP bonus would be cool.

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
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





I kind of have to separate "indexhammer" 8th from "current" 8th in my mind. I really enjoyed indexhammer while it lasted, but the slow descent of 8th into "Collectible Command Point Card Game" has soured me on it a bit. One faction now has access to over 50 different stratagems with 16 of those being inter-changeable based on how your dudes are painted.

I am pretty hopeful about 9th just because fewer command points all at once and more "Command point to give your dude an ability all game" than "Spend 5 command points to make your dudes +2A, reroll hits and wounds, attack twice, and kill 4x their point value in a single turn"

but in terms of older editions, I do like to play me some 2nd ed every once in a while. A word of caution for those whose glasses may be tinted pink though: go into 2nd understanding that you will need to be playing MORE enforced-casually, not less, than 8th.

2nd is not a balanced game, and it is not a game where rules are written in ANY kind of precise language. There is a lot to love in there, and a lot of fun stuff, but it is an old-school simulationist wargame, and it bears absolutely no resemblance to a tight, competitive newer style wargame.

I'm talking you're gonna roll on tables, You're going to roll to see what happens to see what happens to see what table you roll on to see where you move to see how big you explode to see who it hits to see if they save.... You're going to have wild, crazy, stupid wargear combinations that flat out do not work but the game will allow you to take them if you want to, you're going to have that old-school big list of to-hit mods with entries like "Is the target in cover? Ok, but is it like, earthworks, or plants, or a concrete wall, though? How big is the size of the target - smaller than a bread box? Bigger than an elephant?"

Currently, 40k is kind of a hybrid chimera of the two, and mostly when I see people complaining about 40k they're wishing it be more like a competitive game than a simulationist game. That game, you're not going to find by going back into old editions.

"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
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

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.
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

I played 2. 5. 6. and 8. edition.

Second edition was the wild western and the game was highly abusive where you could build characters that could singel handedly kill the other team or similar. A lott of cool rules, and a lot of dead mead to the rules system that was never used. Stil it was cool with all the books and rare models to find and build etc. It was a very different time for the hobby, and the fact that internett was not very pressent.

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.

Stil I really miss my Space Wolves group commanders that could break up from one unit and join other units. That was a really good rule. As was long fangs, grey hunters and the forge world special character really fun! (Although doom of mymeria might have been 6th edition now that I think of it.)

Dark Eldars where fun. Baron Satonyx in a biiiiiiig unit of beasts where imensly fun.

But all in all 5th edition benefitted parking lot armies a lot, and it was really misserable.

6th edition was just like fifth edition with two main differenses. Allies! Every one (except tyranids) could allie. It was not good for the game. Secondly undercosted planes where everywhere. Imperial guard in particular had units that where waaaaaaaay to undercosted for their sustain and damage output. (The 3 twin lascannon one, and the 20 shot heavy bolter hitting on 2's with re-roll one.) 6th edition was the 'flying inntroduction' edition and it was horrible.

8th edition is fun. But games take to long. I also with it was easier to get coversaves. That GW go in and erata point costs and nerf point costs is the best thing to happen to the game.

I am a dyslectic, so bear with me.

Dyslectics in a text based environment? Dakka is aware of you and sympathises with any troubles you have: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/505863.page

Kronos biovore box fresh sporemines. Denying psykick powers since 2017.

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Blackie wrote:
3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.

The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.


I agree with this other than lost of blast plates, keep them gone. Oh and older amounts of DSing was fine, some DS/Outflank is a good thing, but i get what you mean, the ability to DS a Knight is stupid.


9th for sure is looking much better, if they limit the re-rolls i'd be very happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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.


And thats why "Forge the narrative" was so big in 7th to teach people its a game and not everyone has the same terrain, rules are made to make a more enjoyable experience, but if they stricken the rules to much then the game plays itself (it does now b.c there are to little rules but thats a different topic) If someone can no handle playing a game with abstract concepts IDK how they can play ANY game then. So what if that wall has a hole, for our purpose its solid, or has smoke, or other debris is in the way, etc.. it is a WARZONE you can not possible make it that real for a table top game without 100's of hours and dollars building a non mobile terrain table with plaster, debris, etc.. and no one is going to do that or play on that for a local shop.

People like him you can 100% ignore, as they will never be happy, and GW does ignore them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 13:23:25


15k+
:harlequin: 4k
Beastmen 9500
CoS: 3500

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block






3rd and 4th edition were my favourite, even with some of their seriously broken characteristics.

If 40k were to be completely rewritten (here is hoping for 10th)....using the the 3rd & 4th editions as a base and combining better game systems (d10 & d20s) would be a vast improvement over all.

I much preferred the fewer dice rolls of past editions and the way in which very "skewed" outcomes were produced. Sometimes your tanks just blew up, or all your guys fell out and died etc...

I understand why a lot of the "weirdness" was tamed in order to generate more player "strategic control", but I think they went too far now in not wanting to frustrate/alienate competitive players from table flipping because the dice did not go their way. Strategems and re-rolls are cool no doubt, but they function too much as a pacifier for players who can't take losing more so than they do as strategic choices. Would be better to roll some of the more "automatic use" strategems into the respective factions specials rules..
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 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.


True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.

But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.

Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.

You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.

Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?

2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 13:37:33


"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 au
Longtime Dakkanaut




2nd edition allowed for shooting into melee. Sure make it a morale test or something but given how callous and desperate the 40K universe should be, many factions should have the option to try. Certain factions like Tyranids shouldn't even hesitate to do so (of course they also auto-pass morale tests). I remember shooting a barbed strangler at a melee between a surviving Termagant and a Terminator. Clearly the Termagant was doomed sooner or later so I shot into the melee, hit and killed the Termagant, and the resulting strangler blast killed the Terminator. The Hive Mind would clearly consider that a profitable trade.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 14:06:50


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

the_scotsman wrote:
 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.


True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.

But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.

Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.

You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.

Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?

2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.


Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"

Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.

And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Aash wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
3rd and 5th are my favorite editions. What I don't like of modern 40k is the heavy dice rolling and the game design that puts flyers, superheroes and superheavies into standard games. I miss the times when a single Battlewagon or Land Raider were the centerpiece models of the army, maybe even a Predator or a Dread. Can't stand reserve/deepstrikers as well, I like having everything on the table turn 1 for both armies, except units embarked in vehicles of course.

The loss of the AV system and blasts/templates are basically the only things that I would have loved in older editions. Also the possibility for multiple units to share the same transport. I love those changes.


Exactly this ^


Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





Also, it is worth noting that, although you can fire into close combat in 2nd edition, it is a somewhat less deadly game. You can get a guardsman squad + A platoon commander for fewer points than a guardsman squad in 2nd ed. And in 2nd ed, a guardsman squad firing at 12" kills 3.25 guardsmen, while in 8th ed, that same guardsmen squad+Platcom (which costs 65pts in 8th vs 100pts in 2nd) removes 6.2 guardsmen and has to roll 37 dice vs 10.

"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
Confessor Of Sins




Not Online!!! wrote:
7th, if you cut down on the bollocks formations and tone down the lists a bit can be very enjoyable funnily enough.


overall though 5th is also still very liked, but it shows it age and it is kinda difficult to reverse implement newer units.


"If you don't use 7th editions rules, 7th edition can be fun!" Alright, I'll give you that one, lol.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






Over-all? 4th edition is my favourite.

If 5th edition had Wound Allocation abuse and Grey Knights patched, it would be the top dog.

Add me on Discord: BaconCatBug#0294
+++++List of documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 9th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities || Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. || Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages.  
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 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.


True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.

But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.

Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.

You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.

Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?

2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.


Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"

Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.

And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.


Yes, but my point is that 2nd edition will not solve that problem for you.

There are no rules for whether or not you can move thru the wall of a ruin in 2nd edition. They do not exist. You have rules for what happens WHEN you move into a building, but no rule for HOW you can or can not. It's up to the players.

Just like it is up to the players in 8th ed. Nothing at all stops you from agreeing with your opponent that a particular ruin wall is impassable terrain. You'd have to do exactly the same thing if you were playing 2nd.

"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
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

ERJAK wrote:
Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.


That's part of what made Epic great. The other part was actually designing a game system around putting Knights, Titans, and squadrons of tanks onto the field; rather than starting with a system that cares about exactly what kind of bladed implement your grunts are carrying, and then trying to append rules for skyscraper-tall robots onto it.

Now we have Apocalypse for that scale of gameplay, and it, similarly to Epic, does a good job of sticking to a defined scale and avoiding excess chrome in the details. 40K was, for most of its history, more of a skirmish game, and I think it worked better at the more coherent scale of 3rd-5th- large enough that we can lump melee implements into 'close combat weapon' or 'power weapon', small enough that superheavies are once-in-a-blue-moon, only-if-both-players-agree add-ons rather than a core part of gameplay.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Falls Church, VA

the_scotsman wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 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.


True, and there are things I LOOOOOOOVE about 2nd edition. I love having a full 2000 point army with like 4 squads, 2 vehicles, and 2 commanders, and I love seeing stuff happen like the gunner on your tank get knocked out, and spending a turn executing evasive maneuvers with the tank while the guy manning the auxiliary gun yanks the corpse out of the main gunner's compartment and starts manning the main cannon. I love leadership and organization taking a much more constant role in the fighting, with your units being much less reliable about following your commands.

But it is worth noting that there's still plenty of stuff in 2nd edition that are not going to "look" on the table like they are in the fiction of the game. You can say "oh it's immersion breaking that infantry went thru this ruin wall" but in 2nd you can make any unit in partial cover go "my guys are modeled standing up, but I'm going to have them Hide and you cannot shoot them." And you'll have models standing there clearly in line of sight but which you cannot attack, because "they're hiding." There's no difference in my eyes between that and infantry being able to slip through small windows and cracks or filter through doors in ruins.

Also, moving into buildings in 2nd simply has no rules dictating how it works exactly. The only rule states "Once inside a building, models may only move at their normal rate, and may not run." Theoretically, if a building is an "obstacle" and it is a sheer wall more than twice the height of the model, then it is Impassable and cannot be moved thru or over. But there is no allowance for doors modeled on a building to be "passable" - the rule for destroying terrain mentions "Destroying doors" but no rule exists for a door, players would have to come up with that.

You could make the argument that players would be reasonable, and if no rules exist, they would just do what made sense to them. But there's no reason you cannot do that with 8th. Nothing requires you to use the Standard GW Rules For Ruins TM to represent everything from a wholly porous GW ruin with doors clearly modeled on them AND for a solid, impenetrable wall. Rules for Impassable Terrain do exist, nothing in the universe stops you from pointing at that wall and declaring it impassable, which is precisely what you'd have to do in 2nd ed to represent the same wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In 2nd edition, you know precisely and exactly how to destroy a tent made of Canvas or an inflatable structure (AC5, roll to penetrate as with a vehicle then roll a 6 on the building damage effect table, if anyone is curious) but despite there being rules for destroying doors, rules for how your models act when you get inside a building, and rules for moving through various types of terrain, there is no general ruleset for going through a door.

Are you allowed to go through a door? Can you go through a door during a charge move? How about a run move? Do you have to destroy a door before you can go through it? Do you have to spend a turn opening it? Can you secure a door against an enemy unit? How close do you have to be to try and open a door?

2nd edition 40k does not know. But it does know that if you shoot a macro-cannon at an inflatable building, you have a 1/6 chance of destroying it.


Don't confuse "The rules could be more intuitively linked with how things should work" with "GW's shoddy rules writing is good!"

Some things in 8th are simply unrealistic - infantry walking through walls is one thing (in this case they were Aggressors. Not squeezing through tiny windows. Maybe they punched their way through with a powerfist, but that has its own set of problems in this player's mind). But he found it silly that tanks couldn't shove infantry out of the way and drive forwards. He found it silly that tanks couldn't fire when a grot was touching them. He found it silly that melee units just stood around with dicks in their hands while the enemy fell back with no problems or distress or disorganization to the units nearby.

And okay, in this case I am using "he" more generally, to mean a whole variety of people I've talked to. But a good number of people I've met don't 'get' 8th edition 40k, but it's much easier for them to find games they do 'get' so they don't come on here and complain. But they do exist.


Yes, but my point is that 2nd edition will not solve that problem for you.

There are no rules for whether or not you can move thru the wall of a ruin in 2nd edition. They do not exist. You have rules for what happens WHEN you move into a building, but no rule for HOW you can or can not. It's up to the players.

Just like it is up to the players in 8th ed. Nothing at all stops you from agreeing with your opponent that a particular ruin wall is impassable terrain. You'd have to do exactly the same thing if you were playing 2nd.


Well, yes, but I don't care about 2nd edition or not. I was specifically addressing your point that "simulationists" aren't out there (the original post of yours I replied to implied that 40k shouldn't be simulationist because that's not what people wanted).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/06/29 14:58:07


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 catbarf wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Having Knights stomping around next to a single guardsman squad is exactly the sort of ridiculous, heavy metal nonsense that 40k has always been finally reflected on the table.


That's part of what made Epic great. The other part was actually designing a game system around putting Knights, Titans, and squadrons of tanks onto the field; rather than starting with a system that cares about exactly what kind of bladed implement your grunts are carrying, and then trying to append rules for skyscraper-tall robots onto it.

Now we have Apocalypse for that scale of gameplay, and it, similarly to Epic, does a good job of sticking to a defined scale and avoiding excess chrome in the details. 40K was, for most of its history, more of a skirmish game, and I think it worked better at the more coherent scale of 3rd-5th- large enough that we can lump melee implements into 'close combat weapon' or 'power weapon', small enough that superheavies are once-in-a-blue-moon, only-if-both-players-agree add-ons rather than a core part of gameplay.


That's more or less my view on LoW, knights, flyers, and also Special characters. Opponents agreement and Narrative games, not really for matched play. And Epic, Titanicus, Apocalypse and Aeronautica Imperialis cater to Low and knights/titans. Infantry based company level wargaming with limited armoured support is what i want from 40k.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: