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.

In your point of view, what would be a traditional game of 40k? How would the lists be built? I'm just curious as to what others might think what it would be.

Traditional 40K would be no formations, no superheavys or GMC's, no lords of war, no flyers and no fortifications.

Depends on what you started with, I find. I started basically right with the beginning of fifth ed and for me, a traditional game is a nice big 2000pt affair with a good variety of tanks, troops, infantry, and fancy characters and such. I've always liked the variety.

No flyers, superheavies, GMCs.
Even regular MCs should be restricted to actual monsters (nids/demons/etc)
Points should be in the 1,500-2k range
Good mix of units and unit types. It’s hard to make sweeping generalizations on army composition, but you should be able to look at what’s on the table and be able to tell the army’s theme. You don’t need to have the old WD battle report one-of-each-unit build, but avoid spamming.
Have fun.

Edit: forgot single CAD

Like the_scotsman said, it depends when you started. I'd say the same as Xerics (change "no formations" to single-CAD only, and 1500 points), but with an added caveat... 40k no longer follows the rules that lead to traditional game-play. The very core of the game has changed that favours a different style from what I would consider traditional.

Codex-wise, there's far more power in the codexes now than there were in "traditional" times. Drop Pods offer far more reliability than any deep strike in ye olde timese, Winderiders can have heavy weapons on each and every model as a fast, evasive TROOP choice, and the access to improved cover and invulnerable saves has never been easier. Yes, in ye olde times, a Carnifex was difficult to gun down before it reached your lines (still just at T6 and a 2+ save), and it didn't even have access to Run moves.

But the foundational rules of the game also supported this. There was no jump-shoot-jump, no running unless you had fleet (though you could run and charge if you had it), dangerous terrain was LETHAL (no armour saves against it), no snap shooting (you just didn't shoot), no jinking, moving at all reduced rapid fire to a single shot within 12 inches, and the most survivable units in the game had a 5+ Invulnerable save, followed by a 5+ Feel No Pain (which very, very few units in the game had access to).

You can't go back to that without literally going back to previous gaming editions.

The game is far faster now. Armies are larger for the same points cost, but they kind of need to be because everything is so much better than it used to be. Frankly, I think the game works better when you have more tension from actions requiring longer investments. But that might just be me.

Just one CAD with no formations, allies, LoW, and no fortifications.

1 HQ, 2 Troops, and a lot of alcohol.

The Battle at the Farm? That's traditional 40k!

Traditional 40k would be armies chosen from the many books available, any legal Formations or Detachments, any amount of legal Flyers or LOWs and everyone involved just happy to be playing a game and throwing some dice on a mission in the rulebook. So, following the rules as provided and enjoying it.

Non-traditional to me is trying to pull out random restrictions or force someone to play a list they didn't want to bring in the first place. Sadly, it's very difficult to have a traditional game these games.

These are all great replies. I tend to see a traditional battle as something which involves two armies, not really tailored to face one another, but rather an all comers list. Nothing generally spammed, maybe one or two prized units which make up the center piece of the army. Few MCs and no super heavies. Defiantly a theme is a big part of it as well.

 EmperorsChampion wrote:
These are all great replies. I tend to see a traditional battle as something which involves two armies, not really tailored to face one another, but rather an all comers list. Nothing generally spammed, maybe one or two prized units which make up the center piece of the army. Few MCs and no super heavies. Defiantly a theme is a big part of it as well.

Basically any 40k army pre-6th Edition then.

Surprised no one mentioned hero hammer.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Traditional 40k would be armies chosen from the many books available, any legal Formations or Detachments, any amount of legal Flyers or LOWs and everyone involved just happy to be playing a game and throwing some dice on a mission in the rulebook. So, following the rules as provided and enjoying it.

Non-traditional to me is trying to pull out random restrictions or force someone to play a list they didn't want to bring in the first place. Sadly, it's very difficult to have a traditional game these games.

I don't think that was what the OP was asking, and I don't think people's responses as to what a "traditional" game of 40k are about forcing restrictions either. Traditional usually means what people consider to be the historically common approach, but that may no longer be the norm. "Traditionally" Christian families celebrate Easter on Easter Sunday, but the current norm (as I see it) is to celebrate sometime during the weekend, as perhaps due to travel, weather, and health, not all family members can be present on the Easter Sunday. Similarly, "traditional" games of 40k are heavily biased by the conditions of the game when we started playing, with any additions to the game after that point being "non-traditional", even if they are the new "norm". Doesn't mean people will force their traditions on you, nor will it even always be the style they prefer. In pure "traditional" 40k from my perspective, only models with Fleet could Run, but I think the game was vastly improved by the addition of the Run mechanic across all armies. That, at the time, may have been "non-traditional", but it certainly became the norm, and most people were happier for it. Eventually, the "norm" becomes "traditional" if it stays around for long enough, and the majority enjoy it more than the previous. It's also automatically "traditional" for those who start in the new norm, and then see further changes.

We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

Agreed, different definitions.

I'd also agree that the game is currently in a spot where mutually agreed upon restrictions are at their greatest level since the game's inception. It's practically impossible to have a game without restrictions (even the max-4 rule in Magic: The Gathering decks, which is agreed upon by every player I've ever spoken to ever, is but a convention agreed to by all players, and forms the basis of most tournaments, but is not an actual rule within the primary rules set), but the amount and variety of 40k's restrictions are harmful to the health of the 40k community. To continue the Magic-analogy, Magic has different "formats", with "Legacy" being the least restrictive, and "Block" being the most. Legacy format allows you to play with any card from Magic's history, while Block only lets you play with the cards released in the past 3 or 6 months. This is because the creators of the game recognize that the design of cards changes with time, and the possible interactions of cards grows over time, to the point that it would not be enjoyable to all players to only ever have "everything is legal" be the norm. 40k has no similar system in place, and due to the effectively sporadic nature of codex releases, can't follow the same clear format transitions that Magic does. Additionally, we're only given each other as benchmarks to guide our decisions. Hence, I don't believe it's wrong for people to try restrictions, but it is all too easy for these restrictions to overlap in such a way that it drives the community further apart rather than closer together.

 EmperorsChampion wrote:
In your point of view, what would be a traditional game of 40k? How would the lists be built? I'm just curious as to what others might think what it would be.

To my mind, "traditional" 40K, as it was played from 1998 through 2012 was as follows.

One CAD, no LoW's, no GH/SH units, no allies, no formations, no flyers or FMC's, no D weapons, no fortifications, and often some unspoken other rules like 40% min troops.

Traditional to me would be 2nd ed, 2k, space marines or imperial guard verses orks or chaos. 25% troops, leman russ would be the biggest model on the table.

I have absolutely nothing against big models or fliers, just to be clear, apart from the hours they need to construct.

CLEANSE!

CAD Only, No Allies, No Unbound, No Formation, No Flyers, No SHV / GC.

Basically, forget 6 ed and beyond exist.

 Yarium wrote:
Like the_scotsman said, it depends when you started. I'd say the same as Xerics (change "no formations" to single-CAD only, and 1500 points), but with an added caveat... 40k no longer follows the rules that lead to traditional game-play. The very core of the game has changed that favours a different style from what I would consider traditional.

Codex-wise, there's far more power in the codexes now than there were in "traditional" times. Drop Pods offer far more reliability than any deep strike in ye olde timese, Winderiders can have heavy weapons on each and every model as a fast, evasive TROOP choice, and the access to improved cover and invulnerable saves has never been easier. Yes, in ye olde times, a Carnifex was difficult to gun down before it reached your lines (still just at T6 and a 2+ save), and it didn't even have access to Run moves.

But the foundational rules of the game also supported this. There was no jump-shoot-jump, no running unless you had fleet (though you could run and charge if you had it), dangerous terrain was LETHAL (no armour saves against it), no snap shooting (you just didn't shoot), no jinking, moving at all reduced rapid fire to a single shot within 12 inches, and the most survivable units in the game had a 5+ Invulnerable save, followed by a 5+ Feel No Pain (which very, very few units in the game had access to).

You can't go back to that without literally going back to previous gaming editions.

The game is far faster now. Armies are larger for the same points cost, but they kind of need to be because everything is so much better than it used to be. Frankly, I think the game works better when you have more tension from actions requiring longer investments. But that might just be me.

You're right about this, except that moving with rapid fire forced the model to fire twice at rapid fire range, not just once

SM vs Orks, 1500 pts, battle company vs green tide, eternal war missions, can't go wrong.

I started playing 40k during 6th edition but, for the most part, my group has played 40k for a lot longer so I've had to chance to hear their opinions.

I think the traditional 40k format would be the simple CAD, no formations, LoWs, or Super-Heavies.
I think flyers would fit in a traditional list as long as it's something both players talked about prior.

Hmm, traditional does imply something that used to happen.

Formations are complicated and difficult. Especially when those formations are made available through one off or limited edition releases. But formations in principle are pretty cool ideas - they just don't mesh well with the codices that have, as their Base army building method, a CAD.

Traditional for me is the CAD. It's just so easy use. I prefer it to anything else. If they made formations the same, ie, only in the codex and easy to source - and put together I wouldn't mind them so much.

New non-CAD armies are more difficult to put together and mess about with the points system but I think we're all living in a transitional period. Once we get past this time I think it will be better.

Having said that, in all walks of life people like traditional things. And there's a reasonn for that - traditional often translates as more simple. And simple is much better for consumers usually.

For me, traditional or not, I like to know the number of points we have available and build around that.

Back when I started playing you needed your opponent's permission to use a named special character. I can't remember if it was part of the rules or if it was just a house rule at my local GW though.

A traditional/classic game, in my view, would be 1 HQ + 2 troops minimum, single force organisation chart, allies didn't exist, super-heavies were forge world only and weren't allowed in the shop, gargantuan creatures and fliers didn't exist, D-weapons didn't exist (or were forge world only, can't remember), terminators and landraiders were feared, Titans were only in Epic 40k, and "over-powered" was known as "beardy". I miss the good old days.

 Yarium wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

Agreed, different definitions.

I'd also agree that the game is currently in a spot where mutually agreed upon restrictions are at their greatest level since the game's inception. It's practically impossible to have a game without restrictions (even the max-4 rule in Magic: The Gathering decks, which is agreed upon by every player I've ever spoken to ever, is but a convention agreed to by all players, and forms the basis of most tournaments, but is not an actual rule within the primary rules set), but the amount and variety of 40k's restrictions are harmful to the health of the 40k community. To continue the Magic-analogy, Magic has different "formats", with "Legacy" being the least restrictive, and "Block" being the most. Legacy format allows you to play with any card from Magic's history, while Block only lets you play with the cards released in the past 3 or 6 months. This is because the creators of the game recognize that the design of cards changes with time, and the possible interactions of cards grows over time, to the point that it would not be enjoyable to all players to only ever have "everything is legal" be the norm. 40k has no similar system in place, and due to the effectively sporadic nature of codex releases, can't follow the same clear format transitions that Magic does. Additionally, we're only given each other as benchmarks to guide our decisions. Hence, I don't believe it's wrong for people to try restrictions, but it is all too easy for these restrictions to overlap in such a way that it drives the community further apart rather than closer together.

Small hangup: former DCI judge here. The "max of 4" rule in magic is indeed a real rule. You can find it in the comprehensive rules as item 100.2a, and in most of the little starter manuals.

 Bottle wrote:
CLEANSE!

I've actually tried Cleanse with the new rules set, counting each quarter as a an objective. It's still a very exciting means of play!

 edbradders wrote:
Back when I started playing you needed your opponent's permission to use a named special character. I can't remember if it was part of the rules or if it was just a house rule at my local GW though.

I know it was part of the rules in 3rd at least. IIRC there were a few characters that didn’t need permission, and others that needed a certain amount of points. But those rules were written, not house.

Just checked my 3rd and 4th edition SM codexes. 3rd had the permission clause, and some point restrictions. 4th just had some points, to keep the big guys off of smaller tables. There might have been something in the core 4th rulebook, didn’t check and doubt there was something.

Traditional 40k would probably be what people have noted: Single CAD, no fliers, no GMC/SHV, no strength D, no formations.

Why?

Because you could take an army from even very late 5th edition, or very early 3rd edition, and with pretty minimal errata play them in the other system. (technically, much of the GMC and superheavy rules were around in 3rd, but not in core rules, and strength D has had many different definitions). Hell, you could take most 5th edition armies and cram them into 2nd edition!

Good or bad, the way that 40k armies are designed changed profoundly in the last few years, so that armies from even a few years ago are hopelessly out of date.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
We have different definitions of traditional then. My traditional game of 40k follows the rules presented. My classic game of 40k only had my Fleet of Claw models able to run, and I sure do miss that exclusivity... But having older rulesets on a pedestal isn't tradition, it's just classic.

But you do have to realize, the game right now is all about restrictions between the two players to find the middle ground of fun. How many posts here on Dakka are complaints about the power levels and how outclassed certain builds or entire factions are? That's just how it is now. Therefore, my traditional doesn't have any of that. It's just two people playing Warhammer 40k with the current ruleset and having fun.

I think your definition of traditional is more personal than general. A tradition isn't just a rule, it's a rule that's passed down over time. Things like single CAD, single codex... those were long standing customs. If you really preferred, you could call it an "old fashioned" 40k, or "classic" 40k, but you generally don't have a "tradition" that involves using the most up to date of anything.

 ColdSadHungry wrote:

Having said that, in all walks of life people like traditional things. And there's a reasonn for that - traditional often translates as more simple. And simple is much better for consumers usually.

For me, traditional or not, I like to know the number of points we have available and build around that.

Er, no. People tend to go with tradfitional things because it's what they know. That doesn't make it bad per say but it does make people resisitant to change, even if what they know is completely arse backwards. Traditions aren't necessarily simple, than can be quite complicated.

I don't think I've ever played a game where points weren't agreed upon before hand, thats not traditional it's just the way the game works.

I agree with the general consensus on what a tradional set up for 40K would be, and I'm very glad that I play in 7th. It's not at all perfect but I have many more options to buil an army the way I want to (and I still run mostly CAD).

Traditional would also be able to walk into your FLGS and actually get to play a game. These days you have to set a date, grill a trout and hunt a bear while hoping on one foot to find a game.