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.

 aphyon wrote:
Free at last from the GW overlords is where it is at. they cant with you anymore. it is a nice feeling.

Indeed it is nice not having fomo, or chasing after new metas, and all that other stuff.

I kinda wish I could play with Custodes in 5th Edition.

 Quixote wrote:
I kinda wish I could play with Custodes in 5th Edition.

You can....and we do- the 7th ed book and HH 1st ed are completely cross compatible.

you just end up with a very small albeit very tough army. everything is T5 with 2 wounds and a 2+/5+ save (even the vehicles all have 5++) and your terminators are rocking S10 power fists.


The heavy support guys with rifles are effectively rocking heavy bolters with a built in melta pistol. then there is Constantine Valdor, the guy is a beast in 5th ed.

BanjoJohn wrote:
Yeah I understand that, but really, if your unit is standing still in order to get to shoot twice with pistols, and then being able to assault after that, the enemy unit would have been 6" or less away, and that situation happens rarely, if never, because they would have either stayed out of 12" range, or would have assaulted your unit.

So shooting twice with a pistol would normally only happen in circumstances when you'd never be able to assault in the first place, ie, more than 6" away but less than 12" away.

EDIT: I'm also just thinking of cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the unit you're shooting at, the cost for charging them might be less than the benefit of charging them, but the cost might be greater than the benefit. But the spirit of the game tells me its generally more fun to just try anyways.

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

 Just Tony wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
Yeah I understand that, but really, if your unit is standing still in order to get to shoot twice with pistols, and then being able to assault after that, the enemy unit would have been 6" or less away, and that situation happens rarely, if never, because they would have either stayed out of 12" range, or would have assaulted your unit.

So shooting twice with a pistol would normally only happen in circumstances when you'd never be able to assault in the first place, ie, more than 6" away but less than 12" away.

EDIT: I'm also just thinking of cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the unit you're shooting at, the cost for charging them might be less than the benefit of charging them, but the cost might be greater than the benefit. But the spirit of the game tells me its generally more fun to just try anyways.

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

6

Except plasma pistols were a thing and several units could take at least one if not two. Then add one onto the sarge/champ and you get 6 shots at S7 which is often enough to put the hurt on whatever your shooting at.

 Just Tony wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
Yeah I understand that, but really, if your unit is standing still in order to get to shoot twice with pistols, and then being able to assault after that, the enemy unit would have been 6" or less away, and that situation happens rarely, if never, because they would have either stayed out of 12" range, or would have assaulted your unit.

So shooting twice with a pistol would normally only happen in circumstances when you'd never be able to assault in the first place, ie, more than 6" away but less than 12" away.

EDIT: I'm also just thinking of cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the unit you're shooting at, the cost for charging them might be less than the benefit of charging them, but the cost might be greater than the benefit. But the spirit of the game tells me its generally more fun to just try anyways.

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

It depends on if your unit has regular close combat weapons vs power weapons, and what AP your unit's shooting weapon has, vs the armor save of the unit you are looking at shooting/charging. You would have to weigh the cost vs benefit.

LIke... "how many wounds can I cause if I rapid fire and fire heavy weapons (if any)" vs "how many wounds can I cause if I don't rapid fire, only shoot pistols/assault weapons, and then charge into combat"

Most if not all pistol armed troops in 3rd eete armed with a close combat weapon of some type giving them root 2 attacks as a base. As you still got +1 A for charging even if you shot, then once again there isn't much of a reason pull this, especially with the risk of not doing enough damage to force a rout which meant the unit shot would get to charge you next turn and get the +1 A themselves. Still seeing very little reason. To rapid pistols instead of charging leaves you with less damage output despite the charged unit getting attacks back. There seems to be a ton of assuming perfect dice rolls to get to this conclusion...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jayden63 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
Yeah I understand that, but really, if your unit is standing still in order to get to shoot twice with pistols, and then being able to assault after that, the enemy unit would have been 6" or less away, and that situation happens rarely, if never, because they would have either stayed out of 12" range, or would have assaulted your unit.

So shooting twice with a pistol would normally only happen in circumstances when you'd never be able to assault in the first place, ie, more than 6" away but less than 12" away.

EDIT: I'm also just thinking of cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the unit you're shooting at, the cost for charging them might be less than the benefit of charging them, but the cost might be greater than the benefit. But the spirit of the game tells me its generally more fun to just try anyways.

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

6

Except plasma pistols were a thing and several units could take at least one if not two. Then add one onto the sarge/champ and you get 6 shots at S7 which is often enough to put the hurt on whatever your shooting at.

6+6=12

Don't be purposefully obtuse.

Making the assumption that you have a non-combat unit within charge range is about the only possible scenario where rapid works, but even still you have to question whether 2 shots per basic troop and 2 pistol shots per leader and however many special weapon shots are going tondo as much damage as 1 shot per troop and 2 attacks on the charge for all base troops and 3 or 4 per leader. That's excluding characters, naturally. My response would be FAR less diplomatic if someone is wasting characters by rapid firing with them

 Just Tony wrote:

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

Wait . . . Why are we saying you can't assault after firing twice with pistols again? Didn't we clear this up?

 Just Tony wrote:

Jayden63 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
Yeah I understand that, but really, if your unit is standing still in order to get to shoot twice with pistols, and then being able to assault after that, the enemy unit would have been 6" or less away, and that situation happens rarely, if never, because they would have either stayed out of 12" range, or would have assaulted your unit.

So shooting twice with a pistol would normally only happen in circumstances when you'd never be able to assault in the first place, ie, more than 6" away but less than 12" away.

EDIT: I'm also just thinking of cost-benefit analysis. Depending on the unit you're shooting at, the cost for charging them might be less than the benefit of charging them, but the cost might be greater than the benefit. But the spirit of the game tells me its generally more fun to just try anyways.

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

6

Except plasma pistols were a thing and several units could take at least one if not two. Then add one onto the sarge/champ and you get 6 shots at S7 which is often enough to put the hurt on whatever your shooting at.

6+6=12

Don't be purposefully obtuse.

Making the assumption that you have a non-combat unit within charge range is about the only possible scenario where rapid works, but even still you have to question whether 2 shots per basic troop and 2 pistol shots per leader and however many special weapon shots are going tondo as much damage as 1 shot per troop and 2 attacks on the charge for all base troops and 3 or 4 per leader. That's excluding characters, naturally. My response would be FAR less diplomatic if someone is wasting characters by rapid firing with them

I'm not being obtuse. I ran two such squads with my Emperors Children army. Didn't worry about being charged so much as I was effectively I5 even if charged, and the Champ had 4 S5 powerweapon attacks (after demonic gifts), and as long as you didn't kill my summoning Icon, I also ended up with 6-12 daemonetts the next turn for back up.

Yes, its somewhat situationally dependent, yes, my build was possibly unique-ish as I was probably one of the fewer EC armies that didn't overload on sonic weaponry gunline and went with a highly mobile combined arms approach.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

Wait . . . Why are we saying you can't assault after firing twice with pistols again? Didn't we clear this up?

He was talking about rapid figing out of charge range, basically refusing to move forward to achive range for a charge explicitly to rapid fire pistols.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Pistols are 12" range, which means you are within move and charge ranges in order to rapid fire, so STILL no reason to rapid pistols instead of charging.

Wait . . . Why are we saying you can't assault after firing twice with pistols again? Didn't we clear this up?

He was talking about rapid figing out of charge range, basically refusing to move forward to achive range for a charge explicitly to rapid fire pistols.

Ahh, I see.

Well, that doesn't mean that there's still no reason. If the potential charge target is extra dangerous to your troops in CC, shooting twice might be the better call. Bloodletters, Genestealers, Greater Daemons or other nasty characters, etc. An Assault Squad getting two or three extra Plasma Pistol shots at S7 can be better than running into combat with a Bloodthirster, where you'll only hit on 5s and wound on 6s. Or Genestealers who would get to fight first and make you lose those extra CC attacks you were counting on before you even swung.

I can think of a few dark eldar units who you would not want to charge but make good targets to shoot at.

Hmmm. Just making a note of some of the rules as presented for 3rd edition in the "Trial Assault rules" , just some things that strike me as different enough from the rules in the book to make a note of.
If you stand still to fire a pistol twice in the shooting phase, you can not charge in the assault phase.
If you shoot in the shooting phase, you do not gain +1 attack from charging in the assault phase, unless you're a unit that always counts as stationary for shooting, like terminators, dreadnoughts, walkers, bikes, etc.

I just thought this is interesting because of some of the discussion about pistols and charging vs not charging that had been going on. Seems like this makes it a "shoot once with pistols, and charge, or shoot twice with pistols and don't charge, or don't shoot and get a bonus attack for charging" kind of choice to make

As for the two example posts? Retrograde. Move as fast back to the main line as possible so you can shoot them to death with as much firepower as possible. I also don't tend to throw my combat units at combat units. I shoot the choppy stuff and chop the shooty stuff.




And the trial assault rules were swill in my opinion.

 Just Tony wrote:
As for the two example posts? Retrograde. Move as fast back to the main line as possible so you can shoot them to death with as much firepower as possible. I also don't tend to throw my combat units at combat units. I shoot the choppy stuff and chop the shooty stuff.




And the trial assault rules were swill in my opinion.

Hmm, I'm still re-learning them as I study this, I'm curious what you mean exactly, like what about the trial assault rules do you think are bad either compared to the default rules in the 3rd edition rulebook? or compared the rules that came afterwards?

I liked nothing about them. They were unrealistic and punished the entire game because a few units or a couple of army lists were OP in combat.

 Just Tony wrote:
I liked nothing about them. They were unrealistic and punished the entire game because a few units or a couple of army lists were OP in combat.

I can see the reasoning of not allowing charge after double shooting. Kind of feels like having your cake and eating it when your unit gets the firepower of a tactical squad and the charge of an assault squad, even if under only limited circumstances.

A.T. wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I liked nothing about them. They were unrealistic and punished the entire game because a few units or a couple of army lists were OP in combat.

I can see the reasoning of not allowing charge after double shooting. Kind of feels like having your cake and eating it when your unit gets the firepower of a tactical squad and the charge of an assault squad, even if under only limited circumstances.

I'll have to look when I get home but I'm pretty sure you were never allowed to charge after rapid firing or firing heavy weapons.




I'm also trying to figure out in what world someone would get within charge range of a unit and NOT charge, unless that unit was there from a sweeping advance.

 Just Tony wrote:
I'm also trying to figure out in what world someone would get within charge range of a unit and NOT charge, unless that unit was there from a sweeping advance.

Failed charges through cover, units out of charge range that have run to get closer to improve their odds next round, Templars, Repentia, and other forced moves, Seraphim (etc) with hit and run, deepstrikers (and any other alternate arrivals that disallow charges), disembarking units, all kinds of mixed and screening unit scenarios, etc.

Though as an old sisters of battle player I might be a little biased as my primary object was to often get within charge range without charging. More models under the flamer template :p

From what I can tell, having spent the last few weeks reading the rules and working on the 3rd ed battle bible, Original rules did not allow you to charge after rapid firing a rapid fire weapon, or shooting a heavy weapon. But there was an implication you could shoot a pistol twice and then charge.

Looks like the "Trial Assault Rules" clarify that pistols, too, can not be fired twice and allow the unit to charge.

And then the one big difference was, original rules allowed you to shoot a pistol and get +1 attack for charging, but trial assault rules do not give you +1 attack for charging IF you fired a weapon, presumably only a pistol or assault weapon.

The assault rules were pretty consistent once they laid them down from 3rd-5th.

can charge 6"
.assault weapons-1 shot(pistols, melta guns etc..)-yes
.rapid fire weapons-no
.heavy weapons-no
.after running-no, unless you have fleet of foot/claw
.are a stable platform ignoring weapon restrictions(terminators, bikes, dreadnoughts)-yes
.immediately after disembarking from vehicles without the assault vehicle special rule-no
The other fun distinction-beasts, cavalry and leaping units charge 12"

 aphyon wrote:
.immediately after disembarking from vehicles without the assault vehicle special rule-no

The dark eldar 'boarding torpedo' tactic was an amusing way around the rules back then.

Fast skimmers could move flat out up to 24", but units were expressly forbidden from disembarking from a vehicle at that speed. DE could add an extra 2d6" to that, again expressly forbidden from disembarking.
Nothing however preventing them from shock-prowing into another vehicle half way across the board, exploding, and then assaulting out of the crater on the same turn...

BanjoJohn wrote:
From what I can tell, having spent the last few weeks reading the rules and working on the 3rd ed battle bible, Original rules did not allow you to charge after rapid firing a rapid fire weapon, or shooting a heavy weapon. But there was an implication you could shoot a pistol twice and then charge.

Looks like the "Trial Assault Rules" clarify that pistols, too, can not be fired twice and allow the unit to charge.

And then the one big difference was, original rules allowed you to shoot a pistol and get +1 attack for charging, but trial assault rules do not give you +1 attack for charging IF you fired a weapon, presumably only a pistol or assault weapon.

Yeah that seems right. Then in 4th ed the BRB kept the "Pistols can't fire twice and charge" bit, but dropped the "lose bonus attack if you shoot your Pistol before charging".

Which is kinda too bad, tbh. The double Pistiol firing and then charge thing was such a rare circumstance to begin with, it's hard to see why it would be an issue.

 Insectum7 wrote:

BanjoJohn wrote:
From what I can tell, having spent the last few weeks reading the rules and working on the 3rd ed battle bible, Original rules did not allow you to charge after rapid firing a rapid fire weapon, or shooting a heavy weapon. But there was an implication you could shoot a pistol twice and then charge.

Looks like the "Trial Assault Rules" clarify that pistols, too, can not be fired twice and allow the unit to charge.

And then the one big difference was, original rules allowed you to shoot a pistol and get +1 attack for charging, but trial assault rules do not give you +1 attack for charging IF you fired a weapon, presumably only a pistol or assault weapon.

Yeah that seems right. Then in 4th ed the BRB kept the "Pistols can't fire twice and charge" bit, but dropped the "lose bonus attack if you shoot your Pistol before charging".

Which is kinda too bad, tbh. The double Pistiol firing and then charge thing was such a rare circumstance to begin with, it's hard to see why it would be an issue.

I think the main argument I could see for not allowing a charge after firing the pistol twice is that it is the same as a "rapid fire" weapon, which may have been what their intent was in the original rulebook, it just wasn't clear.

One thing I've been wondering about is that, some things from RT era, and 2nd ed era are still easy-ish to find second hand, but it seems like the "Storm of Vengeance" campaign stuff and power plant cardstock terrain are really hard to find. Was that a much smaller production run compared to other things like dark millenium?

It varies

1) Some things might have had a smaller production run or might have had smaller releases in certain regions.

2) There can even be some releases that were entirely unique to one global region with others getting nothing at all and probably not even being told about it. Like those collectible marine figures that were only for the Asian market for a good while

3) Survivability - some stuff survives better than others. Metal models survive generally really well; however cardstock takes more wear and tear and is much easier to damage over time.
Esp if you factor in that many people buy stuff when younger and then sell it on - those formerly loved metal models might be totally fine ;that card stock could be all kinds of bashed in or just thrown out.

4) Desirability comes in waves. Some stuff can vanish from the market because it becomes really popular and if you're unlucky to want it after this period then there's almost nothing left because what there is is already in the hands of collectors/gamers.

5) The Pandemic did a major boost on secondhand sales for a while so that cleaned up a lot of the market stuff being sold to collectors and likely entering long term collections.

6) Time - the longer after a release the less stock there is overall and the less in good condition. Plus again the chance that the longer it is the more likely its wound up entering peoples long term collections.

7) Where you look. Facebook has honestly taken over for 2ndhand gaming trading. Forums just don't have the active populations; ebay grew more unpopular with its growing fees (fees they've recently started dropping to try and compete with essentially free trading on FB).

So sometimes its not a case of something being less sold or such its just that you were looking in spots where the active trading wasn't taking place.

Doubly so for niche games which might have their own trade groups where much of the trade happens instead of generalist ones.

8) Not asking. Honestly sometimes people have stuff and they never bother to sell it - sometimes you've got to put up a "I want this" post around the place to draw those people out.

BanjoJohn wrote:
Was that a much smaller production run compared to other things like dark millenium?

It was right at the end of 2nd edition - October 1997.

Does explain what that mystery mangled cardstock building was that is mixed in with my old necromunda set though :p

Meanwhile, for the sake of anyone interested in such things - the current WIP of my 90-ish% completed 2nd ed Necron Codex is up for grabs in the Proposed Rules section here - https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812214.page#11753668

Feedback would be welcome!

Bringing things back to 1st edition Rogue Trader, what are the chances that GW might reprint the Compendium? I already have Rogue Trader and the two Realm of Chaos reprints from Warhammer World, but the Compendium would be the icing on the cake.

It's always very random what they choose to reprint. At one time they seemed to be on a big roll of reprints with the Inferno and a bunch of other books - but I feel like whoever was spearheading that isn't doing so now. It feels like ages since they did some classic reprints of lore/art books