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 remember a 4th edition 1500-2k point army of 3 tanks, about a hundred bodies, and a bit else.

The bodies were in three 25-man platoons, a Hardened Veterans squad, a company command squad, and a Stormtrooper squad IIRC. There were heavy weapon squads and special weapon squads as well but no conscripts.

The guard squads were 60 points each, iirc the command squads were 50 (roughly, wargear included). So the 3 platoons were 170 each, for 510.

The tanks were about 150 without sponsons, and HB sponsons were 10 pts iirc. So about 160 each for 480.

Storm troopers were 10? pts per model plus wargear, so another 150 or so after plasma guns and sergeant wargear.

Command squads had wargear, and Heroic Senior Officers were like 70 pts plus wargear. Your Command Platoon could include psykers, sentinels, techpriests, etc. iirc, so you'd end up with another couple hundred points. Certainly 150 or so if you really kitted out your officer (which was a bad idea).

So now we're up to about 1250-1350 odd points, and still have hardened veterans, heavy weapon squads, and extra points for any doctrines (e.g. Carapace Armor was 20 pts per squad).

my 5th Edition Space Wolves Tournament Army had 48 models at 1750 points

Karol wrote:

I see a small white square with a zigg zag line going through it, and no picture. So thank you for explaining . I think I would have liked it better, then this edition.

now?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Having rules, strats, relics and warlord traits for individual cults/ covens/ tribes, etc. is absolutely not regression. Eliminating those things would be.

Thanks GW, the Order of Our Martyred Lady no longer plays exactly like the Order of the Bloody Rose.

Now if you try and cram them into the same the same book with Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, etc, what are the odds that all Sisters Orders will have to be the same again?

See, for me, THAT would be regression.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Having rules, strats, relics and warlord traits for individual cults/ covens/ tribes, etc. is absolutely not regression. Eliminating those things would be.

Thanks GW, the Order of Our Martyred Lady no longer plays exactly like the Order of the Bloody Rose.

Now if you try and cram them into the same the same book with Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, etc, what are the odds that all Sisters Orders will have to be the same again?

See, for me, THAT would be regression.

Do you really need that level of detail though? I'd be absolutely happy without it because it would probably be a better game. It's all well and good saying you can play as one of X subfactions but there's no point because there's 1 or 2 that are always going to be better.

3rd ed cut a lot prices.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Having rules, strats, relics and warlord traits for individual cults/ covens/ tribes, etc. is absolutely not regression. Eliminating those things would be.

Thanks GW, the Order of Our Martyred Lady no longer plays exactly like the Order of the Bloody Rose.

Now if you try and cram them into the same the same book with Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, etc, what are the odds that all Sisters Orders will have to be the same again?

See, for me, THAT would be regression.

But you had those things in 4th edition???

Or at least, some armies did. I mean GW was still GW, but look at the Imperial Guard codex doctrines - you could build any army you want. In fact, you had more flexibility than you can get now. For example, your army could be entirely mechanized and entirely in carapace armor, contain tech-priests, and be drug-addled psychopaths. Alternatively, your army could be Jungle Fighters without mechanization and with 6+ saves, but be guaranteed to bring some wood terrain pieces (in which you got bonuses), more heavy flamers, access to Preferred Enemy against a specific Xenos, etc. etc.

WAAAY better customizing-army-rules than we have now, mostly because they cost points.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Having rules, strats, relics and warlord traits for individual cults/ covens/ tribes, etc. is absolutely not regression. Eliminating those things would be.

Thanks GW, the Order of Our Martyred Lady no longer plays exactly like the Order of the Bloody Rose.

Now if you try and cram them into the same the same book with Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, etc, what are the odds that all Sisters Orders will have to be the same again?

See, for me, THAT would be regression.

Nothing new here as we had this before in 3/4/5 Edition, and in fact we have less possibilities for customisation as there were in the past which is not progression.

Martel732 wrote:
3rd ed cut a lot prices.

Yes, I absolutely do need that- I've wanted it for 31 years.

When marines got Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves , it gave may hope that one day every army would be that fleshed out. It's one of the things that kept me in the game for 31 years. This is the first edition where it's been a reality.

And as for being a better game with less stuff, that may be true from a gaming perspective.

Like I already said at great lengths in previous posts to this though. is that from my perspective, Warhammer 40k isn't a game. It is a campaign system.

See, in 2008, I played an Apocalypse game where my Palatine manged to get into a set of hidden tunnels beneath the church and she found the shield that was carried into battle by Saint Katherine and used by Alicia Dominica herself. We were playing out of the Witch Hunters dex at the time, so I used the rules for the Praesidium Protectiva.

When the new codex dropped, guess what? They had created a model carrying that exact shield (it's part of the Triumph of Saint Katherine model; it is carried by the Pronatus that represents saint Katherine in the Triumph). But not only that, it was associated directly with my Order, and linked to five other Order artefacts via the Triumph.

Now my Commandery has been cut off from the Imperium as a whole for about 3000 years, so in my headcannon universe, prior to the end of the warpstorm that cut us off, there was no Triumph of Saint Katherine. It is my commandery's return from the warp that brought the last remaining relic of the Triumph back to Imperial space. So when that warp storm fades in our campaign, first, the Cannoness Preceptor has to make contact with the lost Commandery, and then call in the Hereticus to determine the veracity of the both the Commandery and the Relic. Once these things are confirmed, then the other five representatives of the Triumph will have to arrive.

And since they are bring priceless Order artefacts with them, each will be accompanied by a detachment representing the order to which the artefacts belong. At that point, the Triumph is formed, and it leads a combined force of all six major orders.

So yeah, it's gonna take six or seven months of gaming to make it all happen on the table top. And none of it would be able to happen without those Order specific relics and the traits associated with each of the six Orders, which makes bringing them all together actually mean something.

I don't play the kind of games that end when the dice stop rolling, which is why, for people like me, all of that content is important.

PenitentJake wrote:

When marines got Blood Angels, Dark Angels and Space Wolves , it gave may hope that one day every army would be that fleshed out. It's one of the things that kept me in the game for 31 years. This is the first edition where it's been a reality.
.

no it is not
I am glad that you got what you wanted, but the only faction that is still fleshed out like Marines, are Marines

No Codex World Eaters, Kult of Speed, Leviathan, Aliatoc, Catachan etc.

it might be better for some but not for all and for some factions it is regression as they are still waiting to get things back they lost on the way.

and saying that now all armies are on the same level as BA, DA and SW is nothing more than a punch in the face of all non-Marine players

Let face it, Indexes may be a great tool if you see 40K as just a game, but they fail to do anything other than that. They don't give a feel for the world, details about the force, ideas on how to paint. If you are just a wargamer who doesn't care about the world you game in or the models you use, then an Index is all you need.

But if Warhammer 40,000 is anything more to you than that, you need Codexes to flesh out the world, the army, and even the units.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

My personal issue with this take is that most of that art is recycled, often from 20 or even 30 years ago, I've got multiple copies of such art in both black and white and color now spread over many books.

More of an aside, but it bugs me that adding colour to the art often makes it look worse.

Not least because it frequently looks like a given picture was coloured via a toddler haphazardly smashing paint onto it.

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

My personal issue with this take is that most of that art is recycled, often from 20 or even 30 years ago, I've got multiple copies of such art in both black and white and color now spread over many books.

More of an aside, but it bugs me that adding colour to the art often makes it look worse.

Not least because it frequently looks like a given picture was coloured via a toddler haphazardly smashing paint onto it.

Haha, I know that feel and totally agree, particularly when a lot of it was intended to be black and white pieces from the start and adding color throws off the vibe, they frequently have this almost "photo-negative" look to them and the color drowns a lot of the original detail. Mixing that with toddler painter who's overly enamored of some photoshop elements trying to do things like add lighting effects doesn't help

One piece that springs to mind that I adore in B&W is the classic Word Bearers Dark Apostle piece, where the Dark Apostle is standing atop a mountain of skulls waving his mace with an axe-wielding underling next to him as daemons fly around in the background and you can see crucifixtions and people broken on the wheel in the background as chained captives are marched by. The colorized version of that drowns a lot of the original detail out, highlights and draws attention to the wrong parts of the piece, almost looks like a negative photo with the weird blue-green-grey they colored the background, and they actually resketched a lot of elements like the devotional papers and the spike coming out of the apostles shoulder.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the older editions (which were far more detailed and realistic as well as having better RPG elements) were good about this, because they explicitly didn't care about what type of power weapon your dudes were armed with.

GW is regressing hardcore in their game design, rather than progressing. Things should be better than 4th edition, not worse!

Having rules, strats, relics and warlord traits for individual cults/ covens/ tribes, etc. is absolutely not regression. Eliminating those things would be.

Thanks GW, the Order of Our Martyred Lady no longer plays exactly like the Order of the Bloody Rose.

Now if you try and cram them into the same the same book with Inquisition, Rogue Traders, Sisters of Silence, Assassins, etc, what are the odds that all Sisters Orders will have to be the same again?

See, for me, THAT would be regression.

But you had those things in 4th edition???

Or at least, some armies did. I mean GW was still GW, but look at the Imperial Guard codex doctrines - you could build any army you want. In fact, you had more flexibility than you can get now. For example, your army could be entirely mechanized and entirely in carapace armor, contain tech-priests, and be drug-addled psychopaths. Alternatively, your army could be Jungle Fighters without mechanization and with 6+ saves, but be guaranteed to bring some wood terrain pieces (in which you got bonuses), more heavy flamers, access to Preferred Enemy against a specific Xenos, etc. etc.

WAAAY better customizing-army-rules than we have now, mostly because they cost points.

I liked a lot of things about that IG dex- the way platoons worked as squad substitutes in the FOC was brilliant, and I HATE that 8th cut platoon commanders. The mechanized list was also really cool, and certainly, equipment options were cooler. Back to sisters, I loved wargear like Psyoccula, excrutiators and those kinds of things.

But you know, even the rules flexibility you cite from previous editions for IG doesn't fall across Regimental lines. Yeah, there was a difference between a mechanized force and an infantry force, but I don't honestly remember whether there was a rules difference between Tallarn, Cadia, Vostria, Catachan, etc. Certainly there were traits that reflected the characteristics associated with those regiments, but you had to justify your headcannon vs that of other players since GW didn't associate them formally with regiments.

To my knowledge, there never have been differences between the SoB orders, the various Cults/ Covens/ Kabals of the DE, never rules for different troupes of quins, never differences between the cults of the GSC, but that's a given, because they only existed for 1,2 the tag end of 7 and 8. Not sure if there were ever rules differences between the Septs of the Tau or the Dynasties of the Necrons, or the ork clans either- there might have been, but I didn't have the resources to explore those armies during that period of my life.

(Funny, if the current system had existed in those days, I would have gotten into those armies, because I would have invested in small forces for every army, rather than racing to get just one faction across the 2000 point "finish line," which was basically the only way to viably collect and play in previous editions. With the advent of Kill Team as it's own game and the current set of SOUP rules, I would argue that collecting many small forces is actually a MORE viable way to collect and play than racing to build 2k points of a single faction.)

Obviously, DA, BA and SW broke out early, making marines the only faction to have consistently had rules differences between their various sub-factions.

The other thing is that wargear, and war gear cards were not keyed to sub-faction the way many are now; they existed, but most of them could be taken by any character of the faction, rather than only members of a given sub-faction. The current system of giving both faction-wide generic relics/ wl traits, strats AND subfaction specific options is awesome, because it still provides the potential to lend variety between multiple forces of the same sub faction while also ensuring that each subfaction is different in some ways from the all other subfactions. Strats didn't even exist until 8th, so there's no way they were ever used to distinguish between subfactions in previous editions.

This customizability of previous editions that you think was so much stronger in previous editions really wasn't. It was there for a handful of lucky armies, I'll grant you that. But it wasn't always customization built across subfaction lines and it was nowhere near as deep as it is now, and absolutely not as universal among factions.

And I get that it doesn't matter as much to you if you aren't a narrative campaign style player. it's just that as a member of that subculture, every time somebody suggests reducing the cornucopia of awesome that we currently have in order to streamline it for folks who just want to throw a list together in 5 minutes, play for two hours with a stranger and then walk away and forget about it until the next game, well it's my duty to remind them that some of the things they hate ARE the things that support campaign and narrative play and that if those elements are removed, people who like plots, intrigue and campaign play will suffer.

It is my hope that all Xenos factions will eventually be as big and rich as the Imperium, not that the Imperium will one day be as small as all the xenos factions. I don't improve by subtracting; I improve by adding. The reason I do that is because you can always leave out the pieces that you don't like, but you don't have the option of including things that don't exist.

With this in mind, here's how to keep everyone happy: instead of releasing a 9th, like everyone on Dakka seems to insist must be happening soon, GW should rerelease updates Indexes with a touch of the new material but not all of it, and possibly better cover rules, but market it as Warhammer 40k Arena edition, and then just leave everything else the way it is and keep on trucking.

If you like lean, balanced and streamlined, buy arena; you just need the BRB, and the index that contains the faction[s] that you want to play; or if you prefer, the online subscription service that ensures you're always using the most up to date information for 40k Arena. And thats it. No CA for you. No campaign books. And awesome tournament play in any city that can handle it, with leagues, and webisodes and the whole damn whatever y'all competitve people want.

Because the regular, 8th ed 40k suite, including all of the supporting boxed games are still out here innovating and creating new stuff, growing the galaxy and getting us ever closer to having armies of kroot and vespids to accompany Tau- maybe even a few Jokaero join the alliance. Maybe we get an Imperial Agents Kill Team expansion.

See? Easy. The solution where the greatest number of people win is always the best solution.

Let me say what I believe this way:

I agree with you, but I think the 4th Edition ruleset was easier to be narrative with, and if codexes were written in the 4th edition IG style, they would also be easier to be narrative with by comparison to 8th edition.

8th Edition is very difficult to write a narrative for; the further deviated from the background the rules get, the more difficult it becomes to translate what is happening on the tabletop into narrative.

With some tweaks, 4th Edition is probably the best narrative edition imo.

Also, to answer your question:
There were different rules for the different regiments. Custom regiments were restricted by doctrine number and type - for example, you couldn't take Mechanized Jungle Fighters; and you could only take five doctrines.

However, some prebuilt background regiments went around those restrictions (e.g. Cadians and Death Korps had 6 doctrines). So if you played Cadians, you essentially got one more doctrine that applied to your army than other Guardsmen would. But do you know why Cadia wasn't automatically the best?

Because Doctrines cost points, which meant having "better dudes" meant having "fewer dudes". Which means, again, it is easier to be narrative. Cadians are outnumbered by, say, the Kranak Skull-Takers feral world regiment, but also outperform them.

The legions played much more true to themselves in 3rd/4th edition with the 3.5 codex. Now most of them play like Black Legion unless you load up on cp for strategems. That's a problem with 8th, gw tries to add flavor to many factions with only strategems, so once the cp runs out they lose their uniqueness.

Karol wrote:
how much smaller were games in 3ed or 4th edition?

About the same size (model count) as now.

The Indexes were a way to get us all rebooted for 8th Ed, but I much prefer the Codexes now that we have them.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Indexes were a way to get us all rebooted for 8th Ed

and everyone knew that. I never got those who though the indices where gonna be perminant.

Paper codexes should contain a voucher for a digital version of the codex, and those codexes should be updated every 3 months with errata and FAQs, and points changes should be made every 6 months.

pm713 787378 10772402 wrote:
Do you really need that level of detail though? I'd be absolutely happy without it because it would probably be a better game. It's all well and good saying you can play as one of X subfactions but there's no point because there's 1 or 2 that are always going to be better.

It is still much better then having one rule set and it being bad. A marine codex with 5-6 armies in it, could have one with good rules. If it had just one set of rules, you would have to be very sure that GW is going to give your army a good set of rules, otherwise you may end up waiting years with a bad army. And that is not very fun, talking from expiriance here.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Paper codexes should contain a voucher for a digital version of the codex, and those codexes should be updated every 3 months with errata and FAQs, and points changes should be made every 6 months.

Definetely this.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Paper codexes should contain a voucher for a digital version of the codex, and those codexes should be updated every 3 months with errata and FAQs, and points changes should be made every 6 months.

the only issue with that is the risk of people stealing the voucher, but beyond that I agree. Morphedius has managed to do it by simply giving you a free PDF when you order a book from them, and offering you a PDF if you send them a proof of purchase (a scan of a receipt I guess. never done it myself just heard it's possiable) course the latter might be a bit difficult to do for a company with the market size GW has, and could you imagine if a free digital codex was offered, ONLY if you ordered direct from GW? you'd hear nothing but complaints.

It's shouldn't be too much of a problem to automatically unlock the black library downloads when you order a book.

Considering how easy you can get pirated rules online, the number of stolen vouchers should be very low. Just too much effort for having the same result.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

My personal issue with this take is that most of that art is recycled, often from 20 or even 30 years ago

And GW should change that, yes? Yes. I think we can both agree.

pm713 wrote:
Do you really need that level of detail though?

Yes.

Because I remember what it's like to NOT have any options whatsoever and every army looking the exact goddamn same, and the game was NOT better for it. Army building and customization is a huge part of what makes a lot of people enjoy 40k, and just because you're a boring person who doesn't care about customization, doesn't mean everyone else has to be. Sisters players finally have some decent rules that allow for more customization and variety after TWENTY FRAKKING YEARS, and even if it's not perfect, it's still awesome to have. And it's not your place to try to tell us that we don't need it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
One faction per book, because it lets them add more lore, art, and flavor to the factions. If all you wanted literally were just the numbers attached to each unit, they could just sell access to a barebones spreadsheet that they update periodically. But 40k is about more than just the numbers.

My personal issue with this take is that most of that art is recycled, often from 20 or even 30 years ago

And GW should change that, yes? Yes. I think we can both agree.

pm713 wrote:
Do you really need that level of detail though?

Yes.

Because I remember what it's like to NOT have any options whatsoever and every army looking the exact goddamn same, and the game was NOT better for it. Army building and customization is a huge part of what makes a lot of people enjoy 40k, and just because you're a boring person who doesn't care about customization, doesn't mean everyone else has to be. Sisters players finally have some decent rules that allow for more customization and variety after TWENTY FRAKKING YEARS, and even if it's not perfect, it's still awesome to have. And it's not your place to try to tell us that we don't need it.

Strongly agree. I do not want my Night Lords to go back to just being Black Legion with lightning bolts on their armour. What little differentiation we've gotten may be based almost entirely on strategems, but it's better than nothing.

The poll needs an option for "both but niether"

I'm so torn on this. When 8th started, "Index 40K" was a breath of fresh air. Better balance than what we've had in quite some time, very accessible - basically everything we haven't had in ages. My issue is, I can't decide if my group liked it because we actually LIKED IT, or if we liked it because it was basically everything 7th WASN'T (7th nearly killed 40k in my area).

I enjoyed index 40k and can definitely see the arguments for it, but I also know that, at some point, that game becomes too simple for me and I will want some kind of expansion. I didn't play 3rd until the very end because it felt like we went from playing Chess to, idk, what's more simple than checkers? I don't want a return that. I wonder if there's a middle ground?

I'd prefer it not to be simplified to the point of Chess. Chess isn't a game about creativity, it's a game about memorizing possible moves and whoever can memorize the most possible moves usually wins.

Codex for me, though I'd look to make a couple of changes to how they're done.

- Softback, not hardback
- Released in a similar form to CA19, with the background/photo gallery, etc in book A, and the datasheets/strats/relics/traits/etc in book B
- Ideally, have book B be a pack of sheets for a 3-ring or 4-ring binder (and then, yes, GW can sell branded binders), so that all that material can be stored in one "document". Ensure each page has a reference in a corner to indicate which version it is (see below).
- Assuming they continue with the Munitorum Field Manual for CA20, have that in the same format as Book B
- Adjust the FAQ schedule so that Big FAQ 2 is released far enough ahead of CA to cover printing schedules
- When CA is published, include a third part with replacement pages for any datasheets which have changed since they were released. Again, ensure version control with a reference.