Switch Theme:

Do you regularly play a previous edition of 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
If you do regularly play a previous edition of 40K, which edition do you play?
Rogue Trader
2nd edition
3rd edition
4th edition
5th edition
6th edition
7th edition
8th edition

View results
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 gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

How many people regularly still play a previous edition of 40K? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/26 18:43:42


[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

We only play 9th, but nobody so far asked to try an older edition. I still got my rulebooks from 3rd - 5th at home in the cellar, though.

I wouldn't say no to it as I know I had fun back then, too.


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




NE Ohio, USA

For 40k?
No, not often. Generally in the 1st year or so of a new edition we'll have a tapering off mix of games. It depends upon how fast people adopt the new edition, how quickly people's Codexes arrive, who exactly is playing, etc.
After that it becomes an occasional thing.

I've actually played more previous edition games of WHFB, AoS.2, and Flames of War v.3 in the past two years than retro-40k.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

If I could I would play modified 2nd ed over current 40k any day of the week
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

I want to but my local group isn't that interested.

However, we have a vibrant 30k group going.
   
Made in ca
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader






Never for any game. Myself and my club always play the current version of the games we play.

Wolfspear's 2k
Harlequins 2k
Chaos Knights 2k
Spiderfangs 2k
Ossiarch Bonereapers 1k 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 dreadblade wrote:
How many people regularly still play a previous edition? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?


My personal friendgroup recently started playing 5th edition regularly [as I've mentioned before]. The degree to which it's way better than 9th is astounding. Unlike 9th, things die when shot and actions feel like they have results rather than everything feeling spongy and ineffective. But most importantly, the trade off between movement and firepower makes the game feel way more tactical and tense.

For reference:
A unit cannot fire Rapid Fire or Heavy Weapons and Charge.
A unit cannot fire Rapid Fire weapons if it moves and isn't within half range.
A unit cannot fire Heavy Weapons if it moved.
A vehicle can only fire 1 weapon it it moved [except for Lumbering Behemoth and POMS, which allow Leman Russes and Land Raiders to fire one additional weapon]

Vehicles in general feel way better. Most man-portable Light Antitank Weapons aren't effective against MBT's [they're very effective against light AFV's though. Much like real man-portable AT weapons], you need a big tank gun or a meltagun to put down a main battle tank [Ordnance, Armorbane, or both], but if you put the right weapon on the right target, they die quickly. A Vanquisher Gun or Railcannon punches holes through Land Raiders and Leman Russes, and if you get a penetration, the tank has a basically a 5/6 chance of being suppressed and a 1/3 chance of just being gone [1/2 chance for vehicle squadrons, since immobilized becomes wrecked].
And when a Battle Cannon or artillery gun takes a shot at a Marine squad, the Marine squad basically outright dies. None of this spongy crap where an artillery shell registers like half a guy dead [for real, a Basilisk averages 0.42 dead marines in 9th, before any other mitigating factors come into play. It doesn't actually do much better against Guardsmen, for what it's worth.]

And, while weapons feel better and more effective against targets, the game is overall less lethal as well. Because you can't move, shoot, and charge with infantry, and tanks can only fire 1 weapon while moving, the actual amount of weapons being fired and combats being fought is reduced considerably. Units also generally can't split fire, including vehicle squadrons.

The single Force Org Chart is also a major improvement. You've got 1-2 HQ's, 2+ Troops, 0-3 Elites, 0-3 Fast Attack, and 0-3 Heavy Support, that's it. There's much fewer characters and buffbot characters running around in the game, and overall, those we've generally played with have felt a lot more in line.


It does have it's problems: the big one is would allocation, which can make multiwound infantry notoriously difficult to kill.

The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.

On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.
And the deployment mechanism also generally addresses the 1st player shooting advantage by allowing the 2nd player to counterdeploy. Unlike the current missions, where it's basically everything that can favoring the first player.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 17:43:39


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






When I play an older edition it's 2nd Ed these days. Not because it's the best (which is 4th imo), but because it has the most 'texture'.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

. . .
The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.

Do the players not alternate deploying units in 5th? I remember really enjoying Dawn of War in 4th but players only deployed one unit at a time iirc.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

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




 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.


See, this is where I can see that we will never see eye to eye. Eternal war end of mission scoring is dead boring and dumping it was one of the best things 40k ever did. Yes, the last turn is more important and it does help the second turn player...at the cost of making every other turn largely irrelevant. In eternal war missions you stand across the table from each other, shoot as much of your opponent's stuff dead as possible, then jump jetbikes or w/e onto objectives on the last turn. A dreadfully boring loop that makes every game essentially the same.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/26 17:53:30



 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

It does have it's problems: the big one is would allocation, which can make multiwound infantry notoriously difficult to kill.


Requiring a single multi-wound model to die before a second one receives any wounds takes care of that hiccup from 5th Ed.
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

 dreadblade wrote:
How many people regularly still play a previous edition of 40K? Do you have trouble finding opponents, or has your whole gaming group carried on playing a previous edition?


You know i have an entire dedicate thread about this here?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

To answer your questions though

1. Yes we play 5th edition with a few house rules fixes. i would say close to a dozen regular players
2.no trouble at all we have a core group of players who have been playing since 3rd and we build communities by teaching new players to play the older editions with very positive results. there are still a few locked into the "only play the current version" mind set. and they get games as well as nobody is forcing anybody to only play a certain version other than themselves.

3.As for other games-we play a bunch(see my sig)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 18:15:43






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
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Insectum7 wrote:When I play an older edition it's 2nd Ed these days. Not because it's the best (which is 4th imo), but because it has the most 'texture'.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

. . .
The Dawn of War mission is also awkward: Each player starts with 2 troops and 1 HQ on the board, and everything in reserve. There isn't a no-man's land, so you can deploy right up to the halfway point of the table, but you cannot deploy with 18" of the enemy. This means the first player deploys 2 troops strung out on the center line, and the second player has basically a 6" strip to put their three units in.

Do the players not alternate deploying units in 5th? I remember really enjoying Dawn of War in 4th but players only deployed one unit at a time iirc.


One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.

ERJAK wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

On the other hand, the missions themselves are much better. They're scored at the end of the mission instead progressively, which is actually a considerable improvement I've found. Notably, it makes the 2nd player's last turn really matter and put a lot of the scoring ball into their court to make up for the 1st turn shooting advantage, and it in general makes the latter turns of the game very important, unlike the current missions where the late game turns don't really matter because the scores have already been locked in and decided the game on turn 3.

See, this is where I can see that we will never see eye to eye. Eternal war end of mission scoring is dead boring and dumping it was one of the best things 40k ever did. Yes, the last turn is more important and it does help the second turn player...at the cost of making every other turn largely irrelevant. In eternal war missions you stand across the table from each other, shoot as much of your opponent's stuff dead as possible, then jump jetbikes or w/e onto objectives on the last turn. A dreadfully boring loop that makes every game essentially the same.


We're going to have to agree to disagree. Only nonvehicle nonswarm troops can control objectives, [which, as a side note, is another major improvement because more of any army has to be guys to capture points], which goes a long way to preventing that kind of pop-out.

I think it's a lot better than the progressive scoring model, where the late turns of the game are basically ignorable and the games end quickly and destructively, and vastly superior to the absolutely terrible Maelstrom missions.

amanita wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

It does have it's problems: the big one is would allocation, which can make multiwound infantry notoriously difficult to kill.


Requiring a single multi-wound model to die before a second one receives any wounds takes care of that hiccup from 5th Ed.


We play by the book. And actually, we haven't had much of a problem with it. It's written pretty explicitly that this is how it works and this is how it's intended to work, with an example and everything, so it's not like an artefact of unclear rules writing. It's a little awkward, but it's rarely bad. It's just a known facet of the edition that I know that some people don't like.

And of course, implementing what you suggested would have the opposite artefact of having a T5 Warboss body block all the otherwise ID wounds for a squad of T4 Nobz or something, which is I think a worse artefact to have than a couple of Nobz or Terminators being harder to kill with weak weapons. We had this situation all the time in 6th edition, where a character in melee uses the Challenge rules to just body all the hits that would kill off like the entire rest of the squad.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/08/26 18:54:25


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





UK

I've added a poll to see which previous editions get played most.

[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




Lincoln, UK

Play 3rd Edition with friends, we're gearing up for some 2nd Ed after a couple of good scores on eBay. Also have RT.

Third is decent - gives a good tactical game, and its cheap to collect (the entire line of rulebook + codexes cost me £70). The Org chart, battlefield terrain generators and the list of scenarios in the main rulebook is pretty decent. Cityfight adds some interesting twists to the game.

We don't play the "known" broken combos - we're old fart narrative players who like to play out the "story" of a battle.

2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.

Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
   
Made in ca
Poisonous Kroot Headhunter





I'd love to try out RT one of these days, but haven't had a chance. I still have my books back to 3rd ed, but only play current on a regular basis.

17210 4965 3235 5350 2936 2273 1176 2675
1614 1342 1010 2000 960 1330 1040  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





delete

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 19:10:06


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





I am doing single player scenarios which I record with my digital camera.

Custom rules. Either 2nd or a mix of 3rd-6th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 19:19:06


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't play old editions, but I use pieces of them that are compatible with 9th.

I still use things like Planet Strike missions, Theatres of War, and especially Streets of Death from Urban Conquest.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Momotaro wrote:

2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.

Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
^Watch out for Psykers in 2nd. They can get pretty bonkers. We've specifically not gone very hard on the psyker front (yet), although we do have to use them as one player is a Tyranid player and the Hive Tyrant is always a psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.
Gotcha. Yeah I liked the 4th Ed version of that better, where it was less likely that the first squad of someone would totally push someone into their little 6" strip. It would still happen somewhat, but in order to do so the initial squad had to be more centrally deployed (as opposed to two squads + character spread out), which could make it a little harder to deploy in cover and could lead to the squad being more isolated and vulnerable.

I miss that 3-5 era in general. It was so 'clean'.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/26 19:40:17


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in es
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Not fortunate enough to be in such a position but exalted a number of responses and am interested in results of this poll… thanks for the thread.

   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard






Peoria IL

Since 7th is Horus Heresy games, 7th

DO:70S++G++M+B++I+Pw40k93/f#++D++++A++++/eWD-R++++T(D)DM+
Note: Records since 2010, lists kept current (W-D-L) Blue DP Crusade 126-11-6 Biel-Tan Aspect Waves 2-0-2 Looted Green Horde smash your face in 32-7-8 Broadside/Shield Drone/Kroot blitz goodness 23-3-4 Grey Hunters galore 17-5-5 Khan Bikes Win 63-1-1 Tanith with Pardus Armor 11-0-0 Crimson Tide 59-4-0 Green/Raven/Deathwing 18-0-0 Jumping GK force with Inq. 4-0-0 BTemplars w LRs 7-1-2 IH Legion with Automata 8-0-0 RG Legion w Adepticon medal 6-0-0 Primaris and Little Buddies 7-0-0

QM Templates here, HH army builder app for both v1 and v2
One Page 40k Ruleset for Game Beginners 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Nope. Always the most current one

AI & BFG: / BMG: Mr. Freeze, Deathstroke / Battletech: SR, OWA / HGB: Caprice / Malifaux: Arcanists, Guild, Outcasts / MCP: Mutants / SAGA: Ordensstaat / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / WWX: Union

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.

I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka





Rogue Trader, 3rd & 8th editions.

My brother and I have grown with the game since 1990 and while we don't play as much now, we still enjoy a game when the opportunity arises.

Due to closed clubs and working different shifts, I've been turning towards solo play to keep the dice rolling.

Casual gaming, mostly solo-coop these days.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





drbored wrote:
GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.

I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.


There's a distinction between 1st & 2nd / 3rd through 7th / 8th & 9th. 9th is hardly different from the system before it just as many of the middle editions were scarcely different than the ones before ( up until they went off the rails in 7th ). We didn't move to 9th to escape 8th. We moved to 9th, because it improved 8th.

Can I see myself transitioning to old hammer if 10th makes the game worse? Yea, but they'd have to try really hard to torpedo it at this point.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Daedalus81 wrote:
drbored wrote:
GW's created a great system of making each edition fresh enough to generate hype while also having enough flaws that by the time the NEXT edition comes out, people are eager to try it and move on.

I know plenty of people that stick with older editions of DnD, Pathfinder, or whatever other d20 systems, but not nearly as many (proportionally) that go back to play older editions of 40k. Usually, everyone is sick of the flaws and issues of balance of the previous edition, so they hope that the new edition will be a breath of fresh air. And for a time, it is.


There's a distinction between 1st & 2nd / 3rd through 7th / 8th & 9th. 9th is hardly different from the system before it just as many of the middle editions were scarcely different than the ones before ( up until they went off the rails in 7th ). We didn't move to 9th to escape 8th. We moved to 9th, because it improved 8th.

Can I see myself transitioning to old hammer if 10th makes the game worse? Yea, but they'd have to try really hard to torpedo it at this point.


That's why we started playing 5th. I felt that 9th was bad enough, with the Space Marine Supplements and missions and spongyness and subfaction escalation and campaign books and everything, that I said that we should try playing 5th. And we did, and one of my friends really liked it, and the other didn't care enough either way, so now we play more 5th than 9th.

9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.

In my opinion, it got better up to 5th, but started going downhill in 6th [I have a long list of things I don't like about 6th]. 5th is a sort of peak, even with it's problem, which isn't that bad compared to what we've got now.

There are changes I'd make, but I'm not going to make them because it's mostly matters of how I think things should be, and we're happy to play 5th.

Insectum7 wrote:
 Momotaro wrote:

2nd looks excitingly... wonky. I like the size of the armies - a couple of Marine squads, a couple of characters and a vehicle and you're at 1000 points.

Psykers look like a wild sub-game that may or may not get used. The Battle Bible (online) strips the Dark Millennium card system back to be more similar to the system in the base rules.
^Watch out for Psykers in 2nd. They can get pretty bonkers. We've specifically not gone very hard on the psyker front (yet), although we do have to use them as one player is a Tyranid player and the Hive Tyrant is always a psyker.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

One player deploys everything they can [2 troops and an HQ], and then the other player deploys everything they can. It's just awkward because the first player has a huge depth of deploy for defense in depth and control of the objectives, while the second player is trying to take them all. We've not found it to be too unbalanced.
Gotcha. Yeah I liked the 4th Ed version of that better, where it was less likely that the first squad of someone would totally push someone into their little 6" strip. It would still happen somewhat, but in order to do so the initial squad had to be more centrally deployed (as opposed to two squads + character spread out), which could make it a little harder to deploy in cover and could lead to the squad being more isolated and vulnerable.

I miss that 3-5 era in general. It was so 'clean'.



It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.

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





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.


I'll agree with you about supplements, but there's very little power creep and even less after nerf bats.

Few times in history can I recall diverse such diverse top tables like this - and it isn't just diversity of armies, but of lists, too:

Spoiler:
WG Open- Summer Slaughter. England. 78 Players. 5 Rounds.

Orks 5-0
White Scars 5-0
Imperium(Knights/Custodes) 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Deathwatch 4-1
Ad Mec 4-1
Iron Hands 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Aeldari 4-1
Adeptus Custodes 4-1
Emperor’s Children 4-1
Genestealer Cult 4-1



The Gateway Open GT. Collinsville, IL. 55 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Death Guard 5-0
Custodes 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Ultramarines 4-1
Harlequins 4-1
Tyranids 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Necrons 4-1
Aeldari 4-1


Last Of The Summer Winehammer. Thongsbridge, England. 50 Players. 5 Rounds.

Sisters 5-0
Drukhari 5-0
Aeldari 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Ad Mec 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Space Wolves 4-1
Orks 4-1


The Iowaaagh! Open. 40 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Drukhari 4-1
Dark Angels 4-1 (Made Final Table)
Ultramarines 4-1
Imperium(Guard/Ad Mec) 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Death Guard 4-1

IWTS Open. Brandon, Canada. 35 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Space Wolves 5-0
Death Guard 4-1
Imperium (Guard/Knights) 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Blood Angels 4-1

GT GRANDA WAR LOTUS. Granada, Spain. 28 Players. 5 Rounds.

Iron Hands 5-0
Ultramarines 4-1
Salamanders 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Orks 4-1
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.

Ahh, just the two IG squads, sure. . . . Well I'm gonna take the opportunity to toot 4th editions horn again and say that the 4th ed IG codex held IG Platoons as a single troops choice, and were explicitly deployed as a single entity for deployment purposes. So using the 4th era codex the "Two Troops and an HQ" could actually be:

Troops:
Two Infantry Platoons
4-10 Infantry squads (2-5 each platoon)
2 Command Squads (1 per platoon)

HQ:
1 Command Platoon
Command Squad
and 0-5 total from the following list:
0-2 Fire Support Squads
0-2 AntiTank Support Squads
0-2 Mortar Support Squads
0-1 Sentinel Support Squadron
0-2 Special Weapons Support Squads

So 145 guardsmen total, with all sorts of firepower Which is awesome (queue C&C Red Alert: Hell March https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HUWUtTZvK4)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/27 05:17:27


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Master Engineer with a Brace of Pistols





washington state USA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

9th is definitely worse than 8th. 8th overcame it's deficiencies by being well balanced in the middle period before SM2.0, but then it kind of went out the window with supplements and power creep and now there's kind of nothing redeeming in 9th.


I'll agree with you about supplements, but there's very little power creep and even less after nerf bats.

Few times in history can I recall diverse such diverse top tables like this - and it isn't just diversity of armies, but of lists, too:

Spoiler:
WG Open- Summer Slaughter. England. 78 Players. 5 Rounds.

Orks 5-0
White Scars 5-0
Imperium(Knights/Custodes) 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Deathwatch 4-1
Ad Mec 4-1
Iron Hands 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Aeldari 4-1
Adeptus Custodes 4-1
Emperor’s Children 4-1
Genestealer Cult 4-1



The Gateway Open GT. Collinsville, IL. 55 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Death Guard 5-0
Custodes 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Ultramarines 4-1
Harlequins 4-1
Tyranids 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Necrons 4-1
Aeldari 4-1


Last Of The Summer Winehammer. Thongsbridge, England. 50 Players. 5 Rounds.

Sisters 5-0
Drukhari 5-0
Aeldari 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Ad Mec 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Space Wolves 4-1
Orks 4-1


The Iowaaagh! Open. 40 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Drukhari 4-1
Dark Angels 4-1 (Made Final Table)
Ultramarines 4-1
Imperium(Guard/Ad Mec) 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Death Guard 4-1

IWTS Open. Brandon, Canada. 35 Players. 5 Rounds.

Drukhari 5-0
Space Wolves 5-0
Death Guard 4-1
Imperium (Guard/Knights) 4-1
Death Guard 4-1
Sisters 4-1
Blood Angels 4-1

GT GRANDA WAR LOTUS. Granada, Spain. 28 Players. 5 Rounds.

Iron Hands 5-0
Ultramarines 4-1
Salamanders 4-1
Drukhari 4-1
Orks 4-1



Your idea of diverse and mine are different things. posting tournament win/loss rates are completely meaningless to me and are actually the opposite of what i look for in 40K.

My idea of diverse is armies that fit the in universe lore and still function on the table while also being fun to play. winning or loosing is secondary to that.

In our 5th ed group we have a bit of everything cadian guard, DKOK, iron hands, iron warriors, khorne themed chaos forces, salamanders, tau, admech, demon hunters, various flavors of orks & tyranids etc...






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
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I'd be curious if anyone voted 7th because they play actual 7th rather than because 30k is 7th.

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 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: