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’ve got stuff in the RT boxes, 2nd, etc. The nice styrofoam trays, good sizes. Love em.

I use the plastic from blister packs all the time for sorting minis while building, palettes, etc. Great hobby resource.

Also the old polystyrene box inserts were fantastic for making ruined buildings...

 insaniak wrote:
Also the old polystyrene box inserts were fantastic for making ruined buildings...

Indeed, and GW even recommended you do so with them in their "How to make wargames terrain" book

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Also the old polystyrene box inserts were fantastic for making ruined buildings...

Indeed, and GW even recommended you do so with them in their "How to make wargames terrain" book

A GW from another time and reality

I've still got a NM RT era Squats (Space Dwarves, Mercenaries of the 41st Millenium) box - the one that came with 36 figures.

They weren't glued together, rather held by tabs. Because on the inside of the end panels are blank (non-colored) copies of the banners on the exterior.
I keep it folded up in a manilla folder in the end of one of the book shelves - so that I can make new banners.

Of course now days I've long had a PDF file of the banners.... But I still have that box

The inquisition (demon hunters/death watch) brought the light of the emperor to the black legion.

Sadly the deathwatch totally failed and got taken out early, failing to wound with most of their shots(so man 1s and 2s)

My assassins did a much better job and were a collective annoyance to chaos. in the end we had to go to tie breakers, he had first blood, i had slay the warlord, so it came down to linebreaker and i had my blackstar in his deployment zone.

 aphyon wrote:
My assassins did a much better job and were a collective annoyance to chaos

What are your thoughts on the 3e vs 5e assassins?

I could never really get value out of the pre-GK vindicare but always tried to find a spot for a Calidus or Eversor in casual inquisition/stormtrooper lists.

The assassins do pretty much the same things with only slight variations. i still prefer the demon hunters codexs over Wards 5th ed codex because it changed GK generally as the chamber militant of the greater ordo and made them a stand alone space marine chapter. it really breaks the flavor and it also removed most of the anti-demon/chaos wargear and abilities. the demon hunters book is a good counter to the 3.5 chaos marine book that everybody plays at my FLGS.

As for the vindicare specifically. he is a bit more durable and a bit less lethal in 3.5 but i still like the original-in 3.5 you have to roll night fight to even see him to shoot at him (firing unit gets a 2d6 X3 roll for range). on the down side his spy mask only reduces cover by 1 instead of fully ignoring it. and the turbo penetrator round only does 3d6 instead of 4d6 but given we are using core 5th ed rules it is a sniper rifle so S3 AP2 (the AP specifically for his rifle) with 3d6+rending it is usually more than enough to get the job done. it killed the chaos land raider this game. and did some no-good to other units.

 aphyon wrote:
As for the vindicare specifically. he is a bit more durable and a bit less lethal in 3.5 / it killed the chaos land raider this game

The odds were never really in the old Vindicares favour though. One reliable 2+ to wound shot per game and then coin-flipping, and the turbo-penetrator had to roll above average just to get through a rhinos hull.

While the 5e one was far more powerful it did also continue the GK codex trend of being better against everything except daemons...

Did bunch of 40K last night. i got in 4 total games with 2 of them being classic 40K and the other guys there got in another 3 between them not counting my games.

I completely forgot to take pictures of my game against the black legion.


So just had the battle of my salamanders successors VS black templar it was a pretty brutal game for a kill point game. each side only lost 4 units and it turned into a tie. a morale victory for him-he finally managed to kill the land raider achillies even though it took him the entire game. it is the most points expensive land raider in 5th ed but well worth it most of the time.

I'm interested in playing an old edition of 40k. I have someone who is up for playing 3rd edition, but could be persuaded to play 4th or 5th edition too I think.

I still have the rulebooks and a few of the codex books for at least some of the armies in this edition.

I have a lot of vintage marines, many orks and a good mix of old Squats and the entire Votann range which I'd probably run as Imperial Guard.

Stick with third edition or investigate one of the others?

Out of those options, 5th would be my choice, particularly as it would give you more options for using more recent models.

3rd would be easier for a beginner, though.

Ah, this is where I want to post.

I'm gonna do a Tyrants Legion. I already have some Armsmen and not-Russ tanks, the Centurion is on the way. Next on the list is a 20 man blob of not-quite Cadians.

Can I mix cultists and Cadians? Also is it thematic to replace squad leaders and heavy weapon teams with a Space Marines? I think it would be rad (period correct term) to have an Astral Claw in the mix with a heavy bolter. Maybe even a power fist sarge...

Anyways. I made an OG Red Scorpions list too of two troops and a HQ. Might feel cute and post pics later.

 insaniak wrote:
Out of those options, 5th would be my choice, particularly as it would give you more options for using more recent models.

3rd would be easier for a beginner, though.

May start with 3rd and see if 5th appeals too.

 mattl wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Out of those options, 5th would be my choice, particularly as it would give you more options for using more recent models.

3rd would be easier for a beginner, though.

May start with 3rd and see if 5th appeals too.

If you start with 3rd, or 3.5, make sure you have enough terrain. That was the Achilles heel of that edition. Without enough terrain, the game was often decided by the die roll to determine who went first.

 mattl wrote:
I'm interested in playing an old edition of 40k. I have someone who is up for playing 3rd edition, but could be persuaded to play 4th or 5th edition too I think.

I still have the rulebooks and a few of the codex books for at least some of the armies in this edition.

I have a lot of vintage marines, many orks and a good mix of old Squats and the entire Votann range which I'd probably run as Imperial Guard.

Stick with third edition or investigate one of the others?

When I decided to walk away from modern GW gaming I had the breadth of 8 editions of 40K to choose from. I chose 3rd. In my mind it's the most balanced barring codex creep and has the most material available as far as alt lists, scenarios, and other gaming material. On the flip side it's pretty much the exact same reasons I went back to 6th Ed. WFB as well.

I stopped playing up 40k for a number of reasons round about when 6th came out and didn’t buy any rules until 9th came out through did purchase the Ork and Dark Angels Codex’s


Recently we have been looking at using 3rd being the edition we played most games with including City Fight etc
Stating to dust off my orks in prep for a couple of games this month

Thankfully I have way too much terrain after backing a few Mantic TerrainCrate Kickstarters. 6x4 mats, plus lots of trees, building tiles from Deadzone. I also have a lot of terrain from Necromunda and Warcry too.

Short report today. i forgot to take pictures in this game till it was almost over.

Black templar 4th ed codex VS 5th ed salamanders.

It was a kill points game this time since templar don't like to stand still and hold things.


The game ended on turn 5 and fortunate for him. i had him down to his HQ attached to a squad, a single guy out of another squad and a damaged spartan. had it gone another turn i probably would have tabled him since my gunship was finally on the table. my forces still had both scout squads a speeder, gunship, 2 venerable hellfire dreads and a thunderfire cannon. he took my advice and started killing my drop pods to give him the victory points he needed.

 Shark in Exile wrote:
I stopped playing up 40k for a number of reasons round about when 6th came out and didn’t buy any rules until 9th came out through did purchase the Ork and Dark Angels Codex’s


Recently we have been looking at using 3rd being the edition we played most games with including City Fight etc
Stating to dust off my orks in prep for a couple of games this month

I have a lot of fond memories with that first Cityfight book!

Oh wild, we're talking GK in here too. I have the 3rd and 5th ed codices in pdf. Unsure of which one I want to build out of though. I kind of like the Inquisitorial Stormtroopers. I'm now unsure about The Plan because I am easily upset by Marine scale and I don't want to wait around for GW to flesh out the HH line so I can have a variety of oldmarines in the same scale for 40k. I'm thinking of going with GK for now because those kits are still plentiful. Thoughts on 5th vs 3rd for GK?

3rd ed-AKA demon hunters-lore accurate, excels at fighting demons and chaos. hard counter for the 3.5 chaos codex. treats the GKs as the ordo militant of the ordo malleus, not as a full marine chapter. very good allies rules for other imperial armies

5th-Anti-demon/chaos abilities severely muted, treat it more as a full space marine chapter codex for GKs.

 aphyon wrote:
3rd ed-AKA demon hunters-lore accurate, excels at fighting demons and chaos. hard counter for the 3.5 chaos codex. treats the GKs as the ordo militant of the ordo malleus, not as a full marine chapter. very good allies rules for other imperial armies

5th-Anti-demon/chaos abilities severely muted, treat it more as a full space marine chapter codex for GKs.

To be fair, having an army that's specifically designed to counter another army is just... Not good design.

Best case scenario, the armies are roughly balanced against one another, and the anti-X army obliterates X in games. Second best is X and anti-X is a fair fight, but anti-X struggles elsewhere. And worst-case scenario, anti-X obliterates X AND struggles against non-X armies, meaning you'll almost never get a good, balanced game in with them.

It's like list tailoring, only by the game devs instead of by the players.

It works against all chaos but especially well against demons and it is good design because this is what the game was supposed to be-thematic. GK fight chaos and demons specifically, Sisters fight psykers and heretics. It is the way the ORDOs work in universe. We have moved a long way from what the game was intended to be by the original creators and that IMHO is what became bad about the game.

the difference with GKs is they are very expensive and they also grant chaos players an added bonus with the 3.5 mini dex just for the reason your worried about-

When GK are present against a chaos player the demonic infestation rules come into play allowing the chaos player to respawn all of his lesser demon (no greater demons or demon princes) units when they are destroyed having them walk back onto the table the following turn-

If you end up fighting anything non chaos with the demon hunters codex, you have a bunch of wargear you spent points on (we don't list tailor in our group) that don't do much for you. other than have expensive marines that are also psykers.

house 5th ed 40K salamanders (5th) VS chaos undivided (3.5).










I was fighting black legion again and Failbaddon the harmless did not fail to fail. i locked him in close combat with Brey'arth and beat him down.

I managed to score 2 of the 5 objectives, contest a 3rd and the other 2 were un controlled.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
3rd ed-AKA demon hunters-lore accurate, excels at fighting demons and chaos. hard counter for the 3.5 chaos codex. treats the GKs as the ordo militant of the ordo malleus, not as a full marine chapter. very good allies rules for other imperial armies

5th-Anti-demon/chaos abilities severely muted, treat it more as a full space marine chapter codex for GKs.

To be fair, having an army that's specifically designed to counter another army is just... Not good design.

Best case scenario, the armies are roughly balanced against one another, and the anti-X army obliterates X in games. Second best is X and anti-X is a fair fight, but anti-X struggles elsewhere. And worst-case scenario, anti-X obliterates X AND struggles against non-X armies, meaning you'll almost never get a good, balanced game in with them.

It's like list tailoring, only by the game devs instead of by the players.

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with said design. If your goal is equally leveled armies targeting tournaments and pick-up games, then the 3rd ed GK book is not a good one. But if your goal is to faithfully represent the lore in codex form, then the Daemonhunters codex is fantastic. They're a force specialized against Deamons, and the book makes it so. Playing against non daemon opponents puts you at a disadvantage, as it should. Then it also gives rules for allying them into other armies, providing a framework for the player to choose how much they want to commit to their anti-daemon skew. Great book!

faithfully represent the lore in codex form

I think this is probably the great divide in the 40K community especially for those of us who like the older editions.

I don't give a about "equally leveled armies" i expect them to have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. its your job as the general as to how you use them on the table to make that part of the game work(BFG still very much has that and it is one of my favorite GW games), what's far more important to me is fighting in the 40K setting. the armies should fight like they do in the lore. most of the older codexes give you that (especially 3rd and 4th era, some 5th but it goes downhill from there). any player and any codex can be broken by a diligent enough gamer and that has been especially true in the US scene. but that requires a certain attitude towards the game.

The demon hunters (3rd) vs GK (5th) codex in this divide is a fine example-the first is lore accurate the second is power for the sake of power removing most of the lore via rules in the process.

If the rest of the people who want more balanced armies are anything like me, they DON’T want power for power’s sake.

I have two full armies for 10th right now-Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons. And I stopped playing Death Guard because they’re too strong. It wasn’t fun. It wasn’t any kind of challenge.

I want armies to feel like the lore, but I also want both sides to have a fair shake at victory.

a fair shake at victory.

Another reason i prefer playing our house 5th ed-a fair shake isn't the army, it's the scenario, and your skill as a tactical commander on the table.. it is of course a bit different from current 40K given that it is a completely different game with different terrain rules and having objectives only scored at the end of the game and the game has random turn lengths (5-7). i find it to be a positive since both players have an interest in playing to the end. There have been wild swings in that extra turn or 2 in many of my games.

I can take laterally any army(i've had 9 in the last 25 years and still have 5) and any models i prefer to use within the codex and FOC and still have an equal chance to win assuming average dice rolls.
Doing it according to the lore for your army makes it even sweeter, especially when your invested in your faction.

I had one game i won simply by getting a scout squad in the right place at the end of the game even though i was getting my handed to me most of the game.

And I prefer progressive scoring, since it encourages the game to be more active throughout every turn instead of just the end.
I wouldn’t mind random turn length to come back, though.