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.
I don't want it to come back and I think the FAQ / CA / quick errata approach is much better (in theory anyway), but I do sort of miss only needing one codex and the base rules to play my army and also knowing that if I got a garbage codex I could safely box up that army and ignore it until either a new codex or a new edition dropped.
on templates.. i hated them. i wouldn't mind if they had been used to determine which unit was hit by a number of shots, but they nerfed horder armies so much by being able to force one player to remove a ton of points and slowed down games as those players had to intricately space their units to be 2 inches exactly apart in competitive play to avoid being wiped out.
Kev Adams' wonderfully characterful RT and 2nd edition era Ork models. The 3rd edition redesign by Brian Nelson eventually caused me to drop my Ork army completely. He just sucked all the humour and character out of them for me.
Likewise, RT and 2nd edition's lack of a FOC. I much preferred the list of units (some with 0-N restrictions for balance or more usually for fluff reasons) with % points value limits on characters and support/ally units to any of the various FOC systems we've had from 3rd onwards.
I also miss having some units, vehicles and wargear options be, essentially, a bonus for those willing to put in some work on the modelling side of the hobby and convert or even scratch-build them, rather than the current No Model No Rules malarkey. But nowadays, apparently, expecting people taking part in a model-based hobby to actually try to develop their modelling skills is 'gatekeeping'... (Yes, I have actually been accused of that for suggesting that it's OK for people to have to convert things in order to make use of every option in their codex.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 17:52:05
A little bit of righteous anger now and then is good, actually. Don't trust a person who never gets angry.
Likewise, RT and 2nd edition's lack of a FOC. I much preferred the list of units (some with 0-N restrictions for balance or more usually for fluff reasons) with % points value limits on characters and support/ally units to any of the various FOC systems we've had from 3rd onwards.
Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.
The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.
One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.
I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.
Arcanis161 wrote: Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.
The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.
One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.
I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.
I mean, theoretically sure. But in older editions vehicles worked a lot more like they do in practical war - shots were much more likely to just bounce off, but those that got through have the chance of causing catastrophic failure in just a single shot.
Which leads to situations that are much more spectacular, but also much more frustrating as your highly expensive vehicle can just go kapow with sufficiently lucky rolling.
For every game where you get a cool, cinematic sequence of a vehicle getting a secondary weapon blown off, a track thrown, then the crew shaken by lower-strength fire, and then finally an anti-tank weapon delivering the killing shot and blowing it up, you get a game where one side's lascannons all roll "Shaken" results and one side's single shot rolls "Explode" right off the bat.
I run a lot of custom missions, and one of the ones I've tried in 8th was a titanfight mission, where everyone had a single super-heavy unit under their control. I introduced a system called "Consequences" where players could choose to mitigate damage by taking various consequences like weapon destroyed, mobility impaired, armor blown off, etc. If the defender chose to mitigate damage by taking consequences, the attacker could choose from the list what happened. It worked alright, I'm sure given more time to analyze the lists of consequences people would be able to power game them, but putting the consequences sort of semi in both players' hands led to it feeling fairly reasonable and felt like a decision point.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Arcanis161 wrote: Having to bring an actual Platoon of Guardsmen as a troops choice. I miss it now as I never had the chance to play that way with a Guard army, and now having hundreds of Guardsmen.
The combined durability and fragility of vehicles. Terrifying if you didn't bring any anti-vehicle weapons, but at the same time having to be careful with yours if your opponent did.
One of my fondest memories of 5th Ed was using some Wolf Scouts to blow up a Rhino and finish the squad inside in melee. I don't quite think something like that is possible now.
I regret selling the bulk of my Space Wolf army; I could have at least run vanilla Space Marines for most of them.
I mean, theoretically sure. But in older editions vehicles worked a lot more like they do in practical war - shots were much more likely to just bounce off, but those that got through have the chance of causing catastrophic failure in just a single shot.
Which leads to situations that are much more spectacular, but also much more frustrating as your highly expensive vehicle can just go kapow with sufficiently lucky rolling.
For every game where you get a cool, cinematic sequence of a vehicle getting a secondary weapon blown off, a track thrown, then the crew shaken by lower-strength fire, and then finally an anti-tank weapon delivering the killing shot and blowing it up, you get a game where one side's lascannons all roll "Shaken" results and one side's single shot rolls "Explode" right off the bat.
I run a lot of custom missions, and one of the ones I've tried in 8th was a titanfight mission, where everyone had a single super-heavy unit under their control. I introduced a system called "Consequences" where players could choose to mitigate damage by taking various consequences like weapon destroyed, mobility impaired, armor blown off, etc. If the defender chose to mitigate damage by taking consequences, the attacker could choose from the list what happened. It worked alright, I'm sure given more time to analyze the lists of consequences people would be able to power game them, but putting the consequences sort of semi in both players' hands led to it feeling fairly reasonable and felt like a decision point.
I prefer the old system of armor penetration. That's basically how tanks die, they're invulnerable to everything lesser until something big enough makes a hole in them and kills the crew, blows it up, or starts a fire and it's abandoned.
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!
Oooh, the old Overwatch system. Instead of just always getting to make the hit-on-six roll you had to forgo shooting on your turn to put the unit into Overwatch instead, and then you got to fire at a -1 to-hit in your opponent's turn when a unit moved if you had LoS during it's movement. That made for some interesting tactical decisions.
I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.
On the one hand, I think it's fun to actually put them down (once everyone's finished arguing about the scatter dice as a result of parallax errors) and replacing them with d3s and d6s is just ugly design.
On the other hand, when you're using an army with a lot of infantry, it saves a lot of time when you can deploy and move them without trying to make sure that every man is at least 2" away from every other man.
What's more, especially in 6th/7th, Blast Weapons started to become increasingly ludicrous. Large Blasts seemed to proliferate, and we even started to see Apocalypse Blasts appearing on the table. Not only that, but we also saw the introduction of Torrent Flamers - Flamer Templates that lacked any of the normal restrictions and which usually boasted considerably better Strength and AP than even Heavy Flamers.
I recall trying an infantry-IG army in 7th, consisting primarily of 4 large Platoons. On turn 1, a pair of Dreadknights basically deleted a platoon each, with a combination of Large Blasts and Torrent Flamers. That was near enough half my army killed by just two models which weren't even particularly expensive.
In the end, I think the biggest issue with templates was simply GW doing what they always end up doing and simply taking them too far.
Polonius wrote: I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.
I have to agree with this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 22:37:38
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Polonius wrote: I'm going to back the old combined arms force org chart. Obviously with the more streamlined modern game it needed an update, but I miss that things we now see as common or spammable (carnifex, Leman Russ, wraithlord) were huge, pivotal units. I also liked that armies looked, well, if not like armies, than at least like an actual detachment.
I like that Leman Russes are now common and main-line. It makes the game feel more battle-like, and not like an infantry skirmish.
OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.
I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 22:48:47
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!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: When tanks were basically proof against most firepower, and a Lascannon merely inconvenienced them..
I remember in Fifth edition an acquaintance of mine often brought 3 or 4, sometimes even 5 Leman Russ tanks and other armoured vehicles as part of his Imperial Guard list. Being that 40k rarely has all the options in the box, my one unit of Havocs with it's single Lascannon and Missile Launcher usually glanced one before being unceremoniously removed. I don't think I ever won a game in those days. I can say for sure, I do not miss those days.
What I did miss was what happened when Sixth came around. All my Daemon Princes and my Bloodthirster became substantially harder for him to kill, and what I do miss was watching his gak eating grin disappear when he realised Circus trumps Tank column. What was even better was the subsequent whining about a 'broken list' to which observers would reply "Well, you got what you deserved."
The biggest indicator someone is a loser is them complaining about 3d printers or piracy.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: When tanks were basically proof against most firepower, and a Lascannon merely inconvenienced them..
I remember in Fifth edition an acquaintance of mine often brought 3 or 4, sometimes even 5 Leman Russ tanks and other armoured vehicles as part of his Imperial Guard list. Being that 40k rarely has all the options in the box, my one unit of Havocs with it's single Lascannon and Missile Launcher usually glanced one before being unceremoniously removed. I don't think I ever won a game in those days. I can say for sure, I do not miss those days.
What I did miss was what happened when Sixth came around. All my Daemon Princes and my Bloodthirster became substantially harder for him to kill, and what I do miss was watching his gak eating grin disappear when he realised Circus trumps Tank column. What was even better was the subsequent whining about a 'broken list' to which observers would reply "Well, you got what you deserved."
That's because your only AT weapon was a single lascannon. Meltaguns & Vanquishers & Railcannons were where it's at if you're not going to flank the tanks.
Removing tanks was very easy with a real tank gun. Those were the best days.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 23:56:22
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!
OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.
I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.
100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.
It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/11 23:55:15
OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.
I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.
100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.
It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!
I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.
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!
OTOH, the new org charts have way too high of an HW requirement. It's kind of silly that a platoon of riflemen requires two or three company commanders to lead it.
I think reducing the base requirement and maximum permissible number of HQ's per formation would be the one most important change I would make to the detachment system. There are just too many characters and heroes in the game.
100% agree with this. I really dislike having to buy more characters than I want. Two Battalions of Space Marines shouldn't require four HQs
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: That's because IMO, if it's man-packed and shoulder-fired, it's a second-rate AT gun, and if you only have one you're not going far.
It's the same gun that's featured on the vehicles designed for killing tanks, Land Raiders and Predators. Future-gun, pew pew!
I wouldn't really call it a powerful gun. A Predator carries 4 of them. That's like an Onto's battery of recoilless rifles. It works, but you really want to call in a real tank with a full on tank gun.
I have a hard time thinking of a Land Raider as not-a-real-tank. I would observe that my start in 40K is in an edition where one-shotting a tank with an infantry-portable weapon was not uncommon.
I see the deployment of the Lascannons on Marine tanks to be more of a logistical item. Less of an ammunition load so they can advance farther, faster and more independently while still keeping excellent anti-materiel firepower.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 'Member Datafax cards?
'Member when Chaos Marks actually did something?
'Member when there were less Mexicans?
I wonder if a mexican in australia is the same thing as they are here. Otherwise this doesn't seem to make much sense.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
They start off with a bunch of things that Randy misses, and throw in the Mexicans line at the end, to which he suddenly comes out of his stupor and says "Wait, what?".
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a "Member Berry" reference from South Park.
They start off with a bunch of things that Randy misses, and throw in the Mexicans line at the end, to which he suddenly comes out of his stupor and says "Wait, what?".
Ahh. . . I never saw too much of South Park. Great show though.