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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm going to stake out what is likely a hugely unpopular position, but I have no interest in the Rogue Trader stuff because it was before my time. Any nostalgia would be fake - I'd be retrofitting memories that aren't mine. Yes, I did play a game of Rogue Trader back in the day and didn't like it. It feels pretentious to pretend that I was a fan.

The materials of 2nd are plentiful and provide good depth, and so I'm content with collecting that era.

This may be surprising from a history nerd, but I suppose it's inspired by the depth of my loyalty to "my" edition.

Yeah, fair enough.

For me, Rogue Trader, as seen in a bookshop downtown back in the day, is not only a nostalghia trip down memory lane, but also represents significant Historical and cultural pieces of the 40,000 universe as we know it today.

There are at least a couple of levels to the thing - First and foremost you obviously have the whole backbone of "Warhammer" style game mechanics, the whole WS/BS/S/T/W base that still is the most significant metric in establishing most combat rules of these sorts of GW games.

Then you have the RPG-layer, currently absent from the modern rules, where you (or GM) can design new vehicles, monsters and whatnot, and the roster of many armies playing in the game are generated, not unlike characters and NPCs in other RPG games. Pretty much everything was malleable, all the way in the "Open Play" mindset.

Then you have the "UK scifi" angle, where illustrators from 2000 AD are working on the 40K material and are cross-pollinating it. Furthermore, GW staff was apparently into 2000 AD as well, so influences went back and forth (Heck, I recall an entire thread discussing this connection). Rogue Trader feels spiritually closest to 2000 AD, compared to anything in 40K since (And now with Rebellion branching out into movies and video games, I suppose GW & Rebellion are competitors with little regard towards each other?)

Add the backbone of the 40K universe as we know it into the above and you have an idea of just how multifaceted and influential Rogue Trader was in its time. It was a mashup of many things which had been isolated from each other before. A singularity of sorts, if you will.

 tauist wrote:
Yeah, fair enough.

For me, Rogue Trader, as seen in a bookshop downtown back in the day, is not only a nostalghia trip down memory lane, but also represents significant Historical and cultural pieces of the 40,000 universe as we know it today.

I fully get the idea of collecting them as historical items, and of course younger generations have every right to be enthralled by the work of their elders.

And then there are those that wanted, but never could. I've been doing a bit of that, buying games I wanted as a teen or young adult but couldn't afford. It's fun to be able to see what you missed.

I guess for me it just hit a sour spot. I was not into their aesthetic then, and while I now have more affection for the GW look and feel, I prefer the more polished form of 2nd ed. (both artistically and as a matter of rules).

 Overread wrote:
I can't see how you can argue that GW are selling less when right now there's products that people want which are out of stock and GW only semi- recently built a whole new factory on their main site.

The first US print run of the Fellowship of the Ring sold out. But the US printer only printed 1500 copies, then imported copies from the UK rather than printing a new run in the US.

Selling out does not automatically mean you are selling a lot relative to the potential market, or even that you have hit a fraction of your entire possible, likely market for the product in question, all it means is that you sold all the stock you had.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The first US print run of the Fellowship of the Ring sold out. But the US printer only printed 1500 copies, then imported copies from the UK rather than printing a new run in the US.

Selling out does not automatically mean you are selling a lot relative to the potential market, or even that you have hit a fraction of your entire possible, likely market for the product in question, all it means is that you sold all the stock you had.

This is doubly true for a company like GW, which has a vast catalog of figures to support. Presumably, they do a production run on something when it comes out and then move on. I doubt there is much inventory space at this point to keep huge stockpiles of minor units, especially with a three-year product cycle.

The old model was fairly stable product lines that gradually filled out existing, defined factions, replacing older, cruder sculpts where necessary. One of the smart decisions GW made was the notion of limited vehicle production, where the Imperium's vehicle production was centered on Rhino and Chimera variants. It made sense, and was a good way to balance inventory.

Now the model ranges are a mile wide, but the inventory is likely an inch deep.

Question for the board on 3rd edition, I'm looking at mounting up Command squad characters in attack bike sidecars, as describes in chapter approved 2002. If they do, does the attack bike retain it's HB/MM, and can they fire it? it's not clear in the rules.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Question for the board on 3rd edition, I'm looking at mounting up Command squad characters in attack bike sidecars, as describes in chapter approved 2002. If they do, does the attack bike retain it's HB/MM, and can they fire it? it's not clear in the rules.

I'm pretty confident that the character is intended to replace the gunner, but not the gun, and that they can then fire the gun in the same manner as any other rider on a bike. Note the upgrade cost is more for attack bike over standard bike- I think this is likely to be due to the increased firepower of an attack bike over a standard bike and makes little sense if the attack bike loses its heavy gun.

Could combo well with an auspex to use that firepower on infiltrators. A signum on a techmarine would also be good.

 Haighus wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Question for the board on 3rd edition, I'm looking at mounting up Command squad characters in attack bike sidecars, as describes in chapter approved 2002. If they do, does the attack bike retain it's HB/MM, and can they fire it? it's not clear in the rules.

I'm pretty confident that the character is intended to replace the gunner, but not the gun, and that they can then fire the gun in the same manner as any other rider on a bike. Note the upgrade cost is more for attack bike over standard bike- I think this is likely to be due to the increased firepower of an attack bike over a standard bike and makes little sense if the attack bike loses its heavy gun.

Could combo well with an auspex to use that firepower on infiltrators.

Gotcha, that was my plan. Do a techmarine and then an apothecary with an arm swap to an ancient (since my apohecaries use mainly chapter colors). My LGS had a bunch of attack bikes on Black Friday clearance so I bought them up. And, since the squad already has an attack bike, That means 2 multi-meltas in one squad. Nasty.

I can also decorat the the bike itself to add to the flavor.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Question for the board on 3rd edition, I'm looking at mounting up Command squad characters in attack bike sidecars, as describes in chapter approved 2002. If they do, does the attack bike retain it's HB/MM, and can they fire it? it's not clear in the rules.

I'm pretty confident that the character is intended to replace the gunner, but not the gun, and that they can then fire the gun in the same manner as any other rider on a bike. Note the upgrade cost is more for attack bike over standard bike- I think this is likely to be due to the increased firepower of an attack bike over a standard bike and makes little sense if the attack bike loses its heavy gun.

Could combo well with an auspex to use that firepower on infiltrators.

Gotcha, that was my plan. Do a techmarine and then an apothecary with an arm swap to an ancient (since my apohecaries use mainly chapter colors). My LGS had a bunch of attack bikes on Black Friday clearance so I bought them up. And, since the squad already has an attack bike, That means 2 multi-meltas in one squad. Nasty.

I can also decorat the the bike itself to add to the flavor.

Sounds great!

Re. weapon- it is less clear to me that the attack bike could be upgraded with a multi-melta, as the Chapter Approved entry does not mention this. Having said that, this is an optional rule from 7 editions ago and it is reasonable for character attack bikes to be upgraded with multi-meltas. Plus techmarines firing multi-meltas from attack bike sidecars is cool and that is enough reason.

 Haighus wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:
Question for the board on 3rd edition, I'm looking at mounting up Command squad characters in attack bike sidecars, as describes in chapter approved 2002. If they do, does the attack bike retain it's HB/MM, and can they fire it? it's not clear in the rules.

I'm pretty confident that the character is intended to replace the gunner, but not the gun, and that they can then fire the gun in the same manner as any other rider on a bike. Note the upgrade cost is more for attack bike over standard bike- I think this is likely to be due to the increased firepower of an attack bike over a standard bike and makes little sense if the attack bike loses its heavy gun.

Could combo well with an auspex to use that firepower on infiltrators.

Gotcha, that was my plan. Do a techmarine and then an apothecary with an arm swap to an ancient (since my apohecaries use mainly chapter colors). My LGS had a bunch of attack bikes on Black Friday clearance so I bought them up. And, since the squad already has an attack bike, That means 2 multi-meltas in one squad. Nasty.

I can also decorat the the bike itself to add to the flavor.

Sounds great!

Re. weapon- it is less clear to me that the attack bike could be upgraded with a multi-melta, as the Chapter Approved entry does not mention this. Having said that, this is an optional rule from 7 editions ago and it is reasonable for character attack bikes to be upgraded with multi-meltas. Plus techmarines firing multi-meltas from attack bike sidecars is cool and that is enough reason.

Now I want to go back, get the third one, and have a distinct attack bike for each character.

Go for it on condition of future pictures of the assembled models!

 Haighus wrote:
Go for it on condition of future pictures of the assembled models!

Will do! also, now I want to do side-cars of all characters. Libbys, chaplains, judicar, champion, etc.

The space marines debut their new attack bike technology and it is the motorbike from the Metalocalypse intro.

I was looking at my assortment of chaos stuff (some of it in several pieces after being jostled around through several moves, others half or never painted). I wondered if I had enough for a 1750 point army for use with aphyon’s 5th ed adaption. I cracked open codex 3.5.

Immediately my mind reeled from thoughts of double lash daemon prince nonsense. I was falling back into terrible habits, like “what’s the most effective unit per points? What were tournament players running?” I quickly remembered I don’t have to worry about that and just built a list from what I had.

Only way I could pull it together was going chaos divided with random khorne and nurgle units. It ended up looking like a fun little list with a diverse bunch of units. All that stupid, arbitrary pressure melted away. No more “make sure you have at least two of everything.” It was just a motley of cool stuff thrown together, and it’s finally got me motivated to glue it back together and get it all painted.

Yeah wow.

This is the way.

 Fugazi wrote:


This is the way.

Yep. I remember jumping ship when 4th was starting to emerge and how nice it was that all my games were nostalgia-tinged and storyline-based.

The odd thing is, you can still collect and build, but it's not based on what you NEED but what you WANT. Very different mindset.

 Fugazi wrote:
I cracked open codex 3.5.

Immediately my mind reeled from thoughts of double lash daemon prince nonsense.

*sigh*

Lash was not a 3.5 Edition power. That was from the 4th Edition abomination of a 'Chaos' Codex.

Lovely thread this!

I'm a big fan of older editions. 2nd edition and 3rd edition being my all time favorites. I would gladly play any of them before 10th edition

But I'm also very fond of the models from back then and I have 2 ork armies, 1 for 2nd edition with only models from RT/2nd and then I have a 3rd ed ork army with only models from that time period. I love them both.

3rd edition ork codex was my first ever warhammer product, I still have that codex. I love it to death.

We're 4 friends who used to play a team tournament together and we still do every year. It's always the newest edition of course but we still go and we have fun. Not doing very well (since we basically only play once a year) but it's more of a nostalgic get-together for us, even if the game is a newer edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Fugazi wrote:
I cracked open codex 3.5.

Immediately my mind reeled from thoughts of double lash daemon prince nonsense.

*sigh*

Lash was not a 3.5 Edition power. That was from the 4th Edition abomination of a 'Chaos' Codex.

I skipped a step: I cracked open codex 4, the chaos codex for 5th. Then went back to 3.5. Sorry to cause your dramatic sigh.

 Fugazi wrote:

I skipped a step: I cracked open codex 4, the chaos codex for 5th. Then went back to 3.5. Sorry to cause your dramatic sigh.

I dunno, a dramatic sigh doesn't sound congruent with being a Chaos player. Eldar? Absolutely. Chaos? I'd expect more of a response.

Haha, nah dude, it’s all good. Let’s all just enjoy our toy soldiers.

My frustration is more borne of the fact that I've seen so many "3.5 was broken! Don't you remember Double Lash?" posts, when Lash wasn't a thing in 3.5. It's annoying.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My frustration is more borne of the fact that I've seen so many "3.5 was broken! Don't you remember Double Lash?" posts, when Lash wasn't a thing in 3.5. It's annoying.

Should be complaining about Siren Princes instead!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
My frustration is more borne of the fact that I've seen so many "3.5 was broken! Don't you remember Double Lash?" posts, when Lash wasn't a thing in 3.5. It's annoying.

Back when I was "going retro" and the back to 2nd movement was starting, GW-linked members on another forum would constantly talk it down even to the point of citing rules that didn't exist or were grossly misapplied. It was weird for GW to trash its own design, but that's where things were back then.

The implementation and impact of the rules entirely aside?

The 3.5 Chaos Codex was truly superb.

The differences between given former Legions was tangible, and turned out very different on the board.

Bringing the rules back into consideration? There’s no doubt at all some were just better than others.

Consider Iron Warriors. Their Legion rules offered us the chance to trade two Fast Attack choices for a single additional Heavy Support.


Now that may sound like a genuine consideration. Except, if memory serves?

Iron Warriors couldn’t field Daemons. At all. And so when we look at the Fast Attack options left? It was Raptors and Bikers. Of those, Raptors were 0-1 anyway.

Add in that as a player I’ve never been terribly convinced about Bikers? What was I actually giving up?

Raptors with their squad wide Daemonic Visage were excellent, but I could only have one unit anyway. And as I could never, and still can’t, see the point of Bikers? The drawback simply didn’t exist. Not when I could add a fourth Defiler or Predator. Maybe Basilisk but I’m not sure I remember that was definitely an option.


What came after remains a travesty. Chaos became far, far too ordered. A galactic power known for its random and eclectic nature became all codified and that. And the true threat (cults. No. That’s an L, dirty boy) barely represented.

Don’t make me make yet another thread bemoaning the state of Chaos forces.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Iron Warriors couldn’t field Daemons. At all. And so when we look at the Fast Attack options left? It was Raptors and Bikers. Of those, Raptors were 0-1 anyway.

Add in that as a player I’ve never been terribly convinced about Bikers? What was I actually giving up?

Raptors with their squad wide Daemonic Visage were excellent, but I could only have one unit anyway. And as I could never, and still can’t, see the point of Bikers? The drawback simply didn’t exist. Not when I could add a fourth Defiler or Predator. Maybe Basilisk but I’m not sure I remember that was definitely an option.

I hated Raptors because it undermined the lore that Chaos didn't have jump troopers. They were new tech and without proper support, they couldn't work reliably. All the 2nd ed. Chaos stuff was rugged, simple, sometimes dangerous, but not just the Chaos version of something Imperial.

As for bikes, in 3rd and later, I supposed they were worthless, but in 2nd (and before) when they were conceived, they were super-fast, super-maneuverable, perfect for crashing into a deployment zone or hunting down an enemy leader. It may be strange to say it, but my Chaos Marines only got bikers in the last few years and I recognized (as did my opponents) a deep deficiency in fast maneuver elements.

They are fragile, no question. In my last game, the Eldar made chutney out of two squadrons without breaking a sweat, but that was because they were caught between Swooping Hawks and two jetbike squadrons backed by Vipers. Very ugly.

My Ultra-successor chapter has no bikes because it has land speeders and jetpacks. Plus Razorbacks. Tons of mobility.

But 2nd Chaos was limited in support options, which was part of what made them interesting. Like the warriors themselves, you needed a little demonic help to make things work.

Raptors were weird when they first showed up because Jump Packs weren't meant to be a thing for Chaos.

It’s was the Daemonic Visage which tipped them. Reducing the enemy’s Ld by -2 meant an otherwise tight squeak of a victory would reliably send them packing.

As for the in-universe tech levels? All feeds into the issues with Chaos.

All views and interpretations of Chaos are valid. Because it’s Chaos.

But, it’s not helped them on the field. Some want to just be Marines with Spikes and other perks. Some like myself want a proper hodgepodge riot of options, viability of a given combination be damned. And everything in between.

Which 2nd Ed allowed for: You could bring things you weren't supposed to have, they just cost more.

3rd Ed came along and went "Nope. Jump Packers are totally normal and were here all the time, just off camera!".

To be fair, Raptors were introduced as small, rare, mercenary bands. Index Astartes then expanded them to all Night Lords all the time, and then subsequent editions removed all restrictions on them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Which 2nd Ed allowed for: You could bring things you weren't supposed to have, they just cost more.

3rd Ed came along and went "Nope. Jump Packers are totally normal and were here all the time, just off camera!".

And I was fine with that, because the only options were Imperial models, which either meant your troops were modern renegades or had looted loyal Marines. Great for the flavor and feel. Only a fraction of my Chaos Marines use Chaos models; most are converted Imperials or off-brand to give them the "scavenged from the battlefield/homebrew" look.

Over time, I really came to hate 3rd because of the force selection, which meant every army had to have fast attack, heavy support, etc., destroying their original assymetry. Add in the 31 flavors of marines, and I was out for good.

Thing is, 20 years later, there's still things to collect for my armies, units I can upgrade, factions I can expand. GW never needed to explode the catalog to keep selling figures. 2nd provided so much variety, it just needed to be cleaned up and filled out.

Had a guy come in interested in playing oldhammer, as he wasn't certain which faction he was interested in i broke out the 40K porn...er i mean codexes.

This is a collection of stuff i have with me every game day in case we need them. i am only missing 3 physical codexes out of all the ones i consider to be the best of the 3rd-7th ed.