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.

morgoth wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
As for older editions with ugly models, I mean I don't understand? There are models in play in 9th edition that have been the same for 7 editions. Not a small number either.

Indeed and they are unbearably ugly.
Beyond memberberries I don't see how anyone could want to look at these ugly pieces of incompetent sculpting crap (sure, not *everything*, but omg.. 2nd ed miniatures. yukk.).

What's nice with playing a more recent edition is that it will have rules for all models, including many of the incredibly nice, clean, crisp, detailed sculpts that were released in the recent years.

As someone who plays warhammer for models first, that would be a huge factor in picking an edition.

Imagine you just love GSC and you want to play 5th ed.
Doesn't sound like that'll work out too great now does it?


How about picking an edition without bias ?
Why would you even go for anything but the latest edition that most people play ?
What happens when you make a new friend, who loves 40K, and is not completely crazy so he actually plays the current edition ?

 Da Boss wrote:

So I kinda feel like your post is more like propaganda than discussion.

In the face of so much salt by players who have been salty around here for more than five years straight, through every edition, and who even dare to state that there is as much salt on 8th as there is on 7th ???

At some point, it's a good idea to just look outside of the dakka pit of endless saltiness and realize that people just love GW for the models they're putting out, that most people don't find it too expensive to buy, and that things like AOS and 40k 8th edition have vastly increased the overall appeal of the games and influx of new blood, through very basic means like making the game more playable, less tedious and overall more fun.

Yes, it might not be what you want, or what you like, but pretending that it's anything but a huge glaring success is just crazy.

e.g. I won't ever play AoS because the models are just fething slowed. Not interested sorry.
Won't touch it with a ten foot pole, keep your elves with horns and your crazy shark-riding wtfantasy.
For sure, such a *great* idea has to be the epitome of copyrightable, I don't think anyone was ever *smart* enough to come up with those *awesome* ideas for armies.
Still a huge success, and an awesome game according to most people who have tried it.

I could not disagree strongly enough. To be honest I have a fairly strong dislike for the new GW models, they're doing everything wrong and it's mostly about the dollars (of course).

Firstly, they're way too big and they are ridiculously over-priced for a gram of plastic. At least the old ones felt heavy (and we all know, heavy is good, heavy is a sign of reliability). The fact that they changed the scale to 32mm just to force everyone to rebuy models even though it has an obvious detrimental effect on any miniature war-game (space is a premium, and so is time in painting larger models) speaks loads. The old-school models are not as detailed but they have a kind of charm and heart and soul, like many things that are hand-made instead of mass-computer-produced, that the new ones lack.

And not having as much fine detail is actually a good thing (and you can cram a LOT of that into a "miniature" that is so designed on a computer and so big that is basically a "small action figure"). It's a good thing because you don't use as much paint, but more importantly, you can paint up a nice looking army much much faster. The new range of GW models were designed to do two things: 1. obsolete everyone's old miniatures and scenery; and 2. use more paint per model.

I also find it a lot of fun applying modern painting techniques (and 20+ years of experience) to old-school miniatures. There's nothing quite like an old-school miniature from yesteryear lovingly stripped down, restored and given a paint-job that would have absolutely blown the socks off of anybody back in the day (but is now fairly common place, not a brag or anything, they just couldn't paint very well back then).

Some people seem to be a little confused as to what I mean when I'm talking about scale creep. This is BloodBowl, but it's the same with 40K. And all the measurements in game, scenary, etc. are scaled to go along with it. And it sucks quite badly that they do this.



They fellah on the left is basically an ogre by old standards.

... and anyone who buys the nonsense (I was told this by a GW employee fwiw) that the model on the left is "easier to paint" has not done much painting. They're more difficult to paint because there's more fiddly detail crammed into each one and they take longer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
There's also no reason why playing older editions rules means you can't use the newer models.

I'd prefer to use the older models with the new editions tbf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:
That objection doesn't even make sense. Playing 2nd ed but don't like the 2nd ed boys? Good news! The current boys will work just fine!

Actually they won't because the scale is all off.

In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scene.

BloodBowl is like if some company was, "wtf ... let's give something back, this old software is now OPEN SOURCE! Enjoy Everyone!". Then a few years later, "wait ... people actually like that? Not Open source any more sorry, we want more dollars".... very uncool stuff from GW.

I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.

Actually they won't because the scale is all off.

In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scence.

I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.

Not really a thing in my experience. The scale isn't THAT far off, and the base size isn't that much of an advantage most of the time, unless you're getting into very specific cc situations. When LGS's are allowed to be open, there's a regular "2nd ed" night at our FLGS. You show up and play 2nd ed rules with 2nd ed codexes, but whatever models you want (within reason of course), and a lot of people play with the modern models. It really isn't that big a deal.

EDIT:

To clarify - my comment is related solely to 40k as that's what we were originally discussing.

Tycho wrote:

Actually they won't because the scale is all off.

In BloodBowl this of course requires buying entire new pitches or having to remake your old ones as the bases won't even fit into the squares anymore. I gave the new blood bowl a MASSIVE pass considering the old one is perfectly good, has decades of history and a decades-old fan base and the rules are free. I suspect a lot of old school blood bowl players would be doing likewise but I don't know as I haven't even bothered looking into the the new-school bloodbowl scence.

I don't know anything about 40K really, but from what I remembered it involved a lot of precise ruler measurements from base-to-base. Obviously if the bases are all half a centimeter bigger that throws everything out of whack if the rules were designed for 28mm.

Not really a thing in my experience. The scale isn't THAT far off, and the base size isn't that much of an advantage most of the time, unless you're getting into very specific cc situations. When LGS's are allowed to be open, there's a regular "2nd ed" night at our FLGS. You show up and play 2nd ed rules with 2nd ed codexes, but whatever models you want (within reason of course), and a lot of people play with the modern models. It really isn't that big a deal.

Really? I would have assumed it would throw things off exponentially. But what would I know? I still don't like the modern minatures for two reasons:

1. I'm a grumpy old man.

2. Everything else I said is still true. They're harder and slower to paint and were designed only as a price-gouge on players who had already invested countless hours painting and dollars buying their existing 28mm army. I feel I don't want to concede to that tactic. Screw 'em. I'd rather play 5th edition (or some other ... but my general feeling is 5th seems to be the one most recommended to me).

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by saying this, if so please don't ban me. But I was browing through ... cough thetrove dot is ... cough ... and it was definitely 1st Edition that I played as kid. Scrolling through that old book I recognized some artwork that I thought had been wiped from my memory. Such a weird and nostalgic feeling to remember something you never thought you'd seen in the first place.

1st edition was insanity I got my feet wet with that as well. Literally any other edition is orders of magnitude easier to play than "Rogue Trader" so you'll be fine.

 Mezmorki wrote:
1st edition was insanity I got my feet wet with that as well. Literally any other edition is orders of magnitude easier to play than "Rogue Trader" so you'll be fine.

To be fair, I was about eleven years old. I highly, highly doubt we were playing anything close to "by the book". Just messing about with paper cut-out miniatures and the like. I just remember some of those pictures now I see them. The space marine with all the bullets blasting through him ... how did I ever forget that? Such weird nostalgia.

Really? I would have assumed it would throw things off exponentially. But what would I know? I still don't like the modern minatures for two reasons:

1. I'm a grumpy old man.

2. Everything else I said is still true. They're harder and slower to paint and were designed only as a price-gouge on players who had already invested countless hours painting and dollars buying their existing 28mm army. I feel I don't want to concede to that tactic. Screw 'em. I'd rather play 5th edition (or some other ... but my general feeling is 5th seems to be the one most recommended to me).

Yeah, it really doesn't make that much of a difference game wise. Especially if you're just there to have fun. The difference in most situations is negligible. There are a few rare spots where there's a unqiue advantage but it's rarely string enough or often enough to really matter that much.

As far as not liking the new sculpts - I mean that's fair. You like what you like!


As far as Rogue Trader - That's where I started as well. It was, essentially unplayable without a strong game master who could "fix" the things that didn't work. Like rules for weapons with very cool and elaborate effects, but with no way to be deployed, etc etc. Fun, but not really "playable" by modern standards.

I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.

If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.

 Da Boss wrote:
I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.

If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.

Ha! At last someone who gets it.

Not only do they throw the rules off, but I would go as far as to say they're not as aesthetically pleasing either. Browsing the display cabinets in the local Stockholm "Warhammer" store (for some reason they don't call themselves Games Workshop any longer), I get the feeling the models are more like "toys" than miniatures. Of course they are toys, but you know what I mean I hope. Like action figure dolls instead of miniature war gaming figures. They're just too big, and it means then entire table and all the scenery and rules measurements and everything else have to be bigger too.

That much said, I really did read and consider what @Tycho said too. Make no mistake Tycho, I'm not someone who gets salty about losing games, but at the same time I am a bit of a rules-lawyer. I want the scales of the models to be accurate for the measurements described in the rules. For good reason I believe too. I don't care if it means I win or I lose, but it should be as per the rules as reasonable possible without exploiting obvious loop-holes and technicalities. That doesn't mean you can't have a fun, relaxed, easy-going game. It just means rules are important in creating a fun game. They create the non-arbitrary framework against which the players can, with confidence, hedge their bets. Fluffy rules, arbitrary rules, rules that change on a whim, it might feel like the "chill" thing, but the end result is just not as good for the players, whether they know it or not at the moment.

Anyway ... off on a bit of a rant there. Apologies. It's something that comes up with my discussion on (A)D&D too (a game I am more familiar with).

I always feel like a crazy old man rebasing my stuff onto the smaller bases, so it makes me feel better knowing someone out there feels the same way!

 Da Boss wrote:
I always feel like a crazy old man rebasing my stuff onto the smaller bases, so it makes me feel better knowing someone out there feels the same way!

I would (and do) just buy old miniatures to be honest. I'm just finishing up a Halfling BloodBowl team formed with miniatures from the early 90s and late 80s. It's special - especially the treemen, they're hilarious sculpts and slowly becoming collector's items too.

I am glad to have made a friend on the forum united in my grumpy annoyance of 32mm minis. Which edition do you play?



.

If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!

If I was going to play, probably 5th edition.

It seems like more and more, 5th is the one that gets brought up as the edition most people would "go back" to. It was a pretty solid edition really. Probably just needs some tweaks to the missions, and a maybe a few very small house rules and you're good to go.

 Da Boss wrote:
If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!

Makes sense!

For some dumb reason, if I play 40K, I want it to be 40K, even if it's an old version, not some indie rip-off. That's so pathetic of me and goes against everything I value, but I can't help being a pleb sometimes, I'm only human. Don't even ask me why, I guess their marketing claws have sunken deeper than I care to admit.

In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then? I could probably get the rules and a couple of <1000pt old school armies online I guess and make a playable "board game" out of it for me and a few friends who interested in playing.

Add me to the minority of collectors that prefer the smaller 25mm bases over the size creep to 32mm bases. All of my Blood Bowl teams are on 25mm bases including several newer GW teams that came with 32mm bases. Plus all of my 40k troops are still on 25mm bases including my old Space Wolves, Necrons, and Orks. With the smaller bases I can easily fit 80+ minis into an old grey Chessex case for storage and transport.

Edit: And no, 40k 9th edition is not "worth it." Stick with an older edition (I prefer a 4th/5th hybrid) or even the new Apocalypse ruleset which works great for normal size casual 40k games.

 Da Boss wrote:
I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.

If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.

This probably falls into the category of things you shouldn't worry about until they become an issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.

If it turns out to be a real issue to your local community (not just a local neckbeard or 2) then the eccentric base adapters I linked to in the last page should quickly and cheaply remedy the situation.

5th was pretty good.

Lil tough if you're playing Genestealer Cults or Custodes. I don't think Admech have a 5th compatible dex either. Not sure about Harlequins or Deathwatch either.

Think you have to use the 3rd ed Witch Hunters to field Sisters, and when you do there's not going to be any difference between the orders.

I did like the game though, so not slamming anyone for making that choice. Doesn't sound like OP is necessarily looking for campaign play, so you're not missing out on Crusade. More accurately, you are missing out on Crusade, but you'd be missing out on it even if you were using 9th.

I think the Pro-Hammer 5th guys might have rules for armies that weren't given dexes until 8th, but I'm not sure.

PieInTheSky wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
If I was going to play, probably 5th edition. These days I play Grimdark Future, which is the One Page Rules version of 40K that doesn't care what models you use for it. People play it in 15mm or even smaller scales. As long as all the base sizes are consistent for infantry sized models it is all good!

Makes sense!

For some dumb reason, if I play 40K, I want it to be 40K, even if it's an old version, not some indie rip-off. That's so pathetic of me and goes against everything I value, but I can't help being a pleb sometimes, I'm only human. Don't even ask me why, I guess their marketing claws have sunken deeper than I care to admit.

In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then? I could probably get the rules and a couple of <1000pt old school armies online I guess and make a playable "board game" out of it for me and a few friends who interested in playing.

Yeah for sure it was still the right scale in 5e. But 5e was when some of the bigger models started to come in, right at the end of the edition. It is probably the most popular edition that is not the current edition, so you might find more people interested in it as well.

As to GDF, I can see where you are coming from. It is also VERY stripped down, like most units just have movement, quality and defense stats. 3 stats per dude means that a lot of stuff feels fairly similar.

PieInTheSky wrote:
...In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then?...

Sort of. There was scale creep going on even then; power-armoured models released during 5th (GK, Blood Angels) look really oversized for 25mm bases and have feet sticking off over the edges. Personally I liked the 32mm transition because it gave more space for basing and posing power armour, and it made tall jump troops more stable, but the size creep's only continued until we get to today where the Primaris are crowding the edges of their 32mm bases like PA was crowding the edges of its 25mm bases back in the day.

To me it just speaks to a lack of discipline on behalf of the designers, not being able to stick to a reasonable scale. It is one of the things I hated about PP, the random scale creep within ranges.

 Eilif wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I strongly agree with you about the scale creep PieInTheSky, I really try to avoid the bigger minis and rebase any new minis I buy on 32mms back onto 25mms because I especially hate the footprint creep that happens otherwise and how the 32mm bases go back on the standard for years of 25mm which my entire collection is based on.

If anything it is a major barrier to me joining the modern game, because despite what people insist here, I have seen enough people saying that 25mm bases are modelling for advantage to know that I would run into trouble. And the issue is, they are right. Base size has an impact on gameplay. I am not doing it for that impact, but I would still be open to accusations and so on, something I don't want to deal with.

This probably falls into the category of things you shouldn't worry about until they become an issue. Most likely the base size won't be an issue.

If it turns out to be a real issue to your local community (not just a local neckbeard or 2) then the eccentric base adapters I linked to in the last page should quickly and cheaply remedy the situation.

This is a genuine question, I'm not trying to be snarky.

How can it not be an issue? They're literally 7mm bigger. Given two models that makes a difference of almost a centimetre and a half.

I'm very open about not having a clue as to how the rules go, but I seem to remember arguing over millimetres back in the day. Either modern players fluff measurements big time (or they just don't apply - haven't read the rules) or I am misunderstanding something out of ignorance. I assume it's the second thing so I'm all ears here...

To be clear, I know it doesn't seem like much over a turn, but it would -- I imagine -- make a huge difference if two armies had different base sizes both in movement speed and also to the size of "hit boxes" and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thankyou very much for taking the time to reply, but to be honest there was either too much in-the-know lingo or I'm just too dumb -- probably a mixture of both -- for me to really understand any of that. In short, 5th Ed, yes or no? If no, then which?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

PieInTheSky wrote:
...In any case, I'm really thinking about maybe 5th edition (seems to be on average the most commonly recommended in this thread). I'm assuming that it was still 28mm (25mm bases) back then?...

Sort of. There was scale creep going on even then; power-armoured models released during 5th (GK, Blood Angels) look really oversized for 25mm bases and have feet sticking off over the edges. Personally I liked the 32mm transition because it gave more space for basing and posing power armour, and it made tall jump troops more stable, but the size creep's only continued until we get to today where the Primaris are crowding the edges of their 32mm bases like PA was crowding the edges of its 25mm bases back in the day.

Ugh.

Why do they do it? It's so annoying.

They're not really even miniatures anymore and it so defeats the purpose of a miniature scale tabletop game to make everything so big.

When will it end? Even if you don't have tabletop space-saving considerations as a wargammer and you just enjoy minis for the painting and aesthetics ... miniatures are cool because ... they're miniature.

I'm used to painting (modern) old-school AD&D (Otherworld Miniatures) and old-school Citadel miniatures (Bloodbowl). The new GW range look like ogres to me.

PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.

He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions.

Crusade refers to a campaign mode that is part of 9e that a lot of people like.

Oh, and I also really like Otherworld minis. I have a bunch of their Ettercaps and I adore them.

 Da Boss wrote:
Oh, and I also really like Otherworld minis. I have a bunch of their Ettercaps and I adore them.

Best post in this forum yet!

Kidding ... I'm just a big fan of their work.

But I would also like to expand my horizons beyond 1st Ed. AD&D. 40K 5th Edition is getting more and more appealing with every beer I consume. But then again, so is 9th Edition. Damn it.

 Da Boss wrote:
PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.

He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions...

ProHammer's set up to make core rules that are compatible with Codexes from multiple editions; Mezmorki's stance on that is "use the 7e book!". I haven't gone and done the back-fitting/research to figure out if there are big holes in that.

Back-fitting Harlequins and Deathwatch into 5e yourself is fairly trivial (you have Venoms and the Harlequin Troupe for Harlequins, SIA from Sternguard and mixed squads from Wolf Guard pack leaders for the Deathwatch). AdMech, GSC, and Custodes are harder; there weren't equivalent rules floating around in 5th, the 7e Codexes were less complete, and you need to work with more FW rules to get content for AdMech/Custodes.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
PentientJake was referring to several factions which do not have rules (codex->dex) in 5e.
Genestealer Cults, Adeptus Mechanicus, Custodes, Harlequins and Deathwatch are all factions that were introduced in later editions of the game. All of them are fairly small factions but still might be relevant to you.

He was then also referencing a fan-updated version of 5e called Prohammer that might have 5e usable lists for those factions...

ProHammer's set up to make core rules that are compatible with Codexes from multiple editions; Mezmorki's stance on that is "use the 7e book!". I haven't gone and done the back-fitting/research to figure out if there are big holes in that.

Back-fitting Harlequins and Deathwatch into 5e yourself is fairly trivial (you have Venoms and the Harlequin Troupe for Harlequins, SIA from Sternguard and mixed squads from Wolf Guard pack leaders for the Deathwatch). AdMech, GSC, and Custodes are harder; there weren't equivalent rules floating around in 5th, the 7e Codexes were less complete, and you need to work with more FW rules to get content for AdMech/Custodes.

I realize you're speaking generally, not just to me.

But fwiw, I'm not interesting in "back fitting" or "house ruling" stuff. I like being creative as much (or maybe even more) than the next gamer, but there's an oft underestimated value in "playing by the book". The rules are consistent, non-arbitrary and impartial.

Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.

I can understand if you're playing some kind of competitive battle, but in that case then each team should have exactly the same army regardless, like chess.

But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?

Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.

Because GW when it makes a good army it isn't just better it is playing a different kind of a game sometimes, like the eldar flyer lists or castellan lists in 8th, at the same time when an army is bad, it is not just a bit worse then the good, no it is really bad. And while losing ain't fun, it is twice as unfun when you also don't get to do anything with an army, which was not drasticaly cheaper then a working one. Add to this that GW does not advertise that they write the rules in the way they do, and the fact that there is strange idea spread to new players about , just playing what they want. And we get what we have now. People feel cheated of their time and money, even before stuff like being forced in to builds etc happens.

But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?

matched play has points and victory conditions. Anything that has those two automaticaly becomes a competition. And again, as someone who won 0 real games in 8th ed, I can tell you that losing all the time is not fun. No matter what you think about your or your opponents army.

And this strikes me, not a directing this at your mr Pieln, from hobby people. Winning doesn't matter and people just shouldn't care about it, if they want fun. But if someone mentions that they don't like to paint the models, it suddenly becomes a sine qua non to play at all. An unpainted army, or even single models become something barring any enjoyment or fun from playing the game to the point, where some people think it is okey to refuse playing people with unpainted models. That is somehow okey, but wanting to have a good game with a chance to win is not okey. In fact it makes you, some how, a bad person.

So as for base sizes:

I know a lot of folks are really, really finicky about it, and the more competitive, the more finicky. Not because I'm implying competitive people are jerks- they generally aren't; it's just that in a competitive environment, these things matter more.

But from my casual/ Crusade perspective, the overall point is that if you measure from the same spot on the base to the same spot after the move, the distance the model travels will be the same no matter what size base you're using.

If you measure from center to center, theoretically you can hit another model's base from 3.5 MM further away; if the model you're making contact with is also on a 32 base, it you get an extra 3.5, for a total of 7mm.

But because of the way pile in works, I'm not sure how often it would be an issue.

Karol wrote:

Because GW when it makes a good army it isn't just better it is playing a different kind of a game sometimes, like the eldar flyer lists or castellan lists in 8th, at the same time when an army is bad, it is not just a bit worse then the good, no it is really bad. And while losing ain't fun, it is twice as unfun when you also don't get to do anything with an army, which was not drasticaly cheaper then a working one. Add to this that GW does not advertise that they write the rules in the way they do, and the fact that there is strange idea spread to new players about , just playing what they want. And we get what we have now. People feel cheated of their time and money, even before stuff like being forced in to builds etc happens.

If that's the case then you should leave the hobby or find a different game.

PieInTheSky wrote:
...I realize you're speaking generally, not just to me.

But fwiw, I'm not interesting in "back fitting" or "house ruling" stuff. I like being creative as much (or maybe even more) than the next gamer, but there's an oft underestimated value in "playing by the book". The rules are consistent, non-arbitrary and impartial.

Whether they're entirely "balanced" or not is quite honestly to me not a great concern. I'm not a power-gamer. Whether I win or lose comes second (or tenth) to a fun and consistent game with non-arbitrary, consistent rules. Why should every army even be balanced? It doesn't make sense. Maybe some are just better. Such is life.

I can understand if you're playing some kind of competitive battle, but in that case then each team should have exactly the same army regardless, like chess.

But if you're not playing some kind of competition, is not just about having fun? Even if you're playing the underdog?

My goal is absolutely just to have fun, but in my experience games are more fun when a) they're close, and b) players got to do what they wanted. I'm happy being the underdog and losing all the time if I get to play the game; losing after a close hard-fought battle over six turns where lots of exciting things happened and lots of things blew up is much more satisfying to me than winning by leafblowering my opponent off the table on turn three. I'm also much happier if I feel like I got to use units I liked and I got to do fluffy or cool things with them than if I feel forced by the game to use units I don't like/not use units I do like, or if I need to do unfluffy things to play the game (ex. AoS Khorne Daemon cannon gunline).

I started writing house rules for 40k because no edition is that good at either making sure games are usually close or letting me use the stuff I want to all at once. 7th has a huge breadth of content and I can bring my 30k Mechanicum robots along, but games are often one-sided and not a lot happens. 4th is much more consistent and fair on the table, but without house rules my Mechanicum army doesn't exist, and my mechanized SM are really handicapping themselves by bringing transports.

I understand the desire to play a straightforward consistent by-the-book edition; my experience is that if I make some extra stuff (even just a minimal-interference patch where I shuffle some points costs around) I'm going to have more fun.

As to the impartiality I get irritated when people accuse me of writing my own rules purely because I care only about winning and want to give myself a leg up. If I were an incompetent designer without the self-awareness to check why I'm doing what I'm doing, sure, but house rules to me are not about winning, they're about improving the game. They're about bringing unsupported or under-supported models, about making sure the game is close and exciting, about doing things that make perfect sense within the setting that GW's never bothered to do because it won't help them sell minis. My goal is absolutely to let people bring the models they like, throw dice, and have a good time.

My biggest gripe is having just purchased all the codex I needed for 8th edition(Space Marines, Primaris, Tyranid, Tau, Ork, Necron, Chaos, Imperial Guard), only to have 9th edition drop around my birthday (June 29th).

So, I picked up a copy of the Idomnitus rule book, and am seriously contemplating NOT getting this editions codex. I just don't trust GW to NOT change editions on me so quickly again. Now I just have to figure out all the changes made in the new Codeci and apply them to my 8th ed ones.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
My biggest gripe is having just purchased all the codex I needed for 8th edition(Space Marines, Primaris, Tyranid, Tau, Ork, Necron, Chaos, Imperial Guard), only to have 9th edition drop around my birthday (June 29th).

So, I picked up a copy of the Idomnitus rule book, and am seriously contemplating NOT getting this editions codex. I just don't trust GW to NOT change editions on me so quickly again. Now I just have to figure out all the changes made in the new Codeci and apply them to my 8th ed ones.

It gets better - because even some of the newly released 9th edition codexes are already out-dated because the point value tables in the back are tweaked in the muitorium update or whatever it is.

It's insanity!