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.

FWIW, I started messing around with Tabletop Simulator - pretty awesome stuff for WH40K. It's possible that the virtual realm might provide more opportunity for finding opponents.

Deadnight wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The difficulty with trying to rewind is that you still need people to play with. I suspect that most of the people complaining endlessly on Dakka are people who dislike 9e but whose playgroup is happy with it and can't convince anyone to play anything else. The fixation on "GW needs to fix the current official rules" probably springs from dealing mostly with people who insist on playing only the current official rules.

It's like sex. You don't need a thousand notches on your bed post. One like minded partner and you are set. You can only play one person at a time after all. Bigger groups have advantages, do do smaller groups.

Thing with the argument about folks' playgroups is playgroups are generally 'active' players and typically tuned into the current 'game'. Thing is, they don't represent the hobby as a whole. There's plenty folks that are 'not active' or 'taking a break' and plenty 'former players' too. And they're, in my experience at least, more willing to do older editions. You are likely not the only horse in town that wants to do what you want to do. Find other people, put less EXP into list building and more into social networking. It won't be immediate but you will find them.

So active players are tuned to the current game, but don't represent the hobby.... Hows that work?
And in-active/former players are more likely to play previous editions - but once they start doing that, don't they become active?

Who exactly represents this hobby?

ccs wrote:
Who exactly represents this hobby?

Whoever is buying the most stuff.

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

 insaniak wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

That was just a Skimmer rule, Land Speeders could do that too.

I would love to go back and play 5E at some point, I'd even consider some 3E or 4E with my CSMs.

What I'd really love to play is 5E with 4E's wound allocation and vehicle secondary weapons rules, and maybe a couple other tweaks, maybe I'll set that up for some solo home gaming.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

That was just a Skimmer rule, Land Speeders could do that too.

It wasn't just the skimmer pop ups, although Eldar having wider access to skimmers and jetbikes than everyone else amplified it. Warp Spiders could also jump out, shoot you and then jump back into cover, and while Swooping Hawks couldn't do multiple-move-in-one-turn shenanigans, being able to jump out of close combat without penalty and fly off the table until the Eldar player was ready to bring them back wherever they wanted to go hit a similar level or irritation.

A LOT of nostalgia drives the attraction to 2nd but even the slightest scrutiny shows how awful that edition truly was. It was so great that when given the opportunity came to either fine tune it or replace it wholesale GW chose the latter.

 Just Tony wrote:
A LOT of nostalgia drives the attraction to 2nd but even the slightest scrutiny shows how awful that edition truly was. It was so great that when given the opportunity came to either fine tune it or replace it wholesale GW chose the latter.

I've played it recently and it's great. You just have to decide with your opponent on how dirty you want to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

That was just a Skimmer rule, Land Speeders could do that too.

It wasn't just the skimmer pop ups, although Eldar having wider access to skimmers and jetbikes than everyone else amplified it. Warp Spiders could also jump out, shoot you and then jump back into cover, and while Swooping Hawks couldn't do multiple-move-in-one-turn shenanigans, being able to jump out of close combat without penalty and fly off the table until the Eldar player was ready to bring them back wherever they wanted to go hit a similar level or irritation.

Ahh yeah, true. Well, I think my answer to some of that was Whirlwinds, teleporting Librarians, and lots of Overwatch.

 Just Tony wrote:
A LOT of nostalgia drives the attraction to 2nd but even the slightest scrutiny shows how awful that edition truly was. It was so great that when given the opportunity came to either fine tune it or replace it wholesale GW chose the latter.

Except they didn't 'replace it wholesale'. They replaced parts of it, like the rather clunky assault phase, but for the most part 3rd edition was just 2nd edition with a whole bunch of detail stripped out to speed up gameplay, because both players and GW wanted the game to cater to larger battles. 2nd edition worked just fine for smaller skirmishes, which is what it was designed for, but got clunky very quickly as games got bigger.

^"wholesale" is more correct than not, imo. The 2nd to 3rd transition is still the biggest edition shift in the history of the game.

It was the same size as 7th to 8th.

Both required a complete reset of the Codices and required a "black book" with get-you-buy unit rules until their respective Codices came out.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I would love to go back and play 5E at some point, I'd even consider some 3E or 4E with my CSMs.

What I'd really love to play is 5E with 4E's wound allocation and vehicle secondary weapons rules, and maybe a couple other tweaks, maybe I'll set that up for some solo home gaming.

Give ProHammer a look (sorry to all for my eternal evangelizing).

The wound allocation is more similar to 4th edition but is also a bit more robust and consistent in how it resolves shooting with mixed weapons against models with mixed armor/cover saves. Builds in forgiveness for the defender to allocate casualties as they want, but avoids the cheese of 5th editions system that let you spread wounds around on multi-wound models.

Refined the vehicle shooting and movement rules, also a bit of a hybrid between 4th and 6th. Vehicles have more flexibility to move quickly and have some chance of shooting, but getting too exposed is also really risky.

If I were to go back it would likely be to 6th with some tweaks. That's the edition most of us around here feel was the best. Also when we were gaming 3-4 days a week in spite of work and family.

5th would take more overhaul not just to cote ruled but also to codices. 3rd and 4th I wouldn't want to revisit and I never played 2nd.

7th I also enjoyed quite a bit but that's when the stupidity really started getting out of hand.

Anyway lack of FAQ would be a potential reoccurring issue.

dominuschao wrote:

Anyway lack of FAQ would be a potential reoccurring issue.

If you're playing with a more or less static group of people, it doesn't have to be an issue. Just start your own. That's what we used to do... any issues that come up during the game, if they can't be resolved immediately with a quick discussion on how to handle it (and the vast majority could), then we would roll off on it to keep the game going, and then in between games would discuss as a group how to handle that situation in the future. Start an FAQ document to track these decisions, if that seems necessary, although the group I mostly gamed with back in the day never found that to be necessary.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was the same size as 7th to 8th.

Both required a complete reset of the Codices and required a "black book" with get-you-buy unit rules until their respective Codices came out.

While they both needed a codex reset, the strctural changes from 2nd to 3rd were more drastic.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
A LOT of nostalgia drives the attraction to 2nd but even the slightest scrutiny shows how awful that edition truly was. It was so great that when given the opportunity came to either fine tune it or replace it wholesale GW chose the latter.

I've played it recently and it's great. You just have to decide with your opponent on how dirty you want to play.

Which is the same issue you have with modern 40K or with AOS. I shouldn't have to write a 50 Shades Of Grey style contract before every game. That's part of the reason I stuck with 3rd, there isn't really much need for any pruning or safe words.

insaniak wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
A LOT of nostalgia drives the attraction to 2nd but even the slightest scrutiny shows how awful that edition truly was. It was so great that when given the opportunity came to either fine tune it or replace it wholesale GW chose the latter.

Except they didn't 'replace it wholesale'. They replaced parts of it, like the rather clunky assault phase, but for the most part 3rd edition was just 2nd edition with a whole bunch of detail stripped out to speed up gameplay, because both players and GW wanted the game to cater to larger battles. 2nd edition worked just fine for smaller skirmishes, which is what it was designed for, but got clunky very quickly as games got bigger.

Ermm, actually...

Insectum7 wrote:^"wholesale" is more correct than not, imo. The 2nd to 3rd transition is still the biggest edition shift in the history of the game.

… this. 2nd Ed. was essentially a tabletop RPG trying to be a tabletop wargame. Inquisitor is a better successor to 2nd than any edition of 40K since. Almost all of the problems in modern 40K and the last few rulesets have come from trying to cram 2nd back into a system that wasn't meant to house it. Well, except for 9th, which is essentially trying to cram 2nd Ed. into AOS.

ccs wrote:

Who exactly represents this hobby?

No one. There is no hive mind, or even consensus.
Most people tend to believe that what their local group does (or in absence of a local group, what they do themselves) represents some wider group, but its nonsense.
Some folks like to point at tournament players because they can come up with a list of house rules required to play in their rented space. But 99.9% of players don't do that (the space is too small for more than a couple hundred), so it isn't broadly applicable to the experience of most.

Play, have fun. Don't worry about some arbitrary standard that doesn't exist.

2nd ed wasn't even remotely an RPG. That was Rogue Trader... and I'd say the shift from RT to 2nd was considerably more significant than that from 2nd to 3rd.

Although that opinion may be skewed by the fact that I never played RT. It possibly just looks more confusing from the outside.

2nd Ed wasn't trying to be an RPG. As said above, that was RT.

2nd Ed was a small skirmish game trying to be a wargame. That's why 2nd Ed wasn't a great game, but the Necromunda, which used the 2nd Ed rules, was frickin' fantastic.

Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

That was just a Skimmer rule, Land Speeders could do that too.

I think you may be confusing the only glance rule in 4th ed for skimmers VS eldar wargear specifically the crystal targeting matrix that allowed eldar tanks to shoot midway in the movement phase so they could move out from behind blocking LOS cover and then back again in the movement phase and could only ever be targeted by indirect fire.

Vaktathi wrote:I would love to go back and play 5E at some point, I'd even consider some 3E or 4E with my CSMs.

What I'd really love to play is 5E with 4E's wound allocation and vehicle secondary weapons rules, and maybe a couple other tweaks, maybe I'll set that up for some solo home gaming.

Our rules for our group did exactly that defensive weapons of S5 or less can fire normally at combat speed in addition to one weapon of S6 or higher as per 4th ed rules, we added in the snapfire rules so that even moving faster you could still at least contribute something to the game, but at degraded BS needing 6+ to hit.

dominuschao wrote:If I were to go back it would likely be to 6th with some tweaks. That's the edition most of us around here feel was the best. Also when we were gaming 3-4 days a week in spite of dork and family.

5th would take more overhaul not just to cote ruled but also to codices. 3rd and 4th I wouldn't want to revisit and I never played 2nd.

7th I also enjoyed quite a bit but that's when the stupidity really started getting out of hand.

Anyway lack of FAQ would be a potential reoccurring issue.

WOW, dumbfounded, 6th edition is by far considered the worst edition in that incarnation of the game, so much so even GW killed it after only 14 months. i literally killed 40K gaming at our FLGS.

There is actually very little overhaul needed using 5th ed core rules. In fact we allow players to use whichever codex they feel best represents their army and it works just fine. i use 3rd for demon hunters or witch hunters(sisters), our chaos player uses the 3.5 chaos dex. my admech uses the 7th ed codex. our guard players use the 5th ed codex etc... they all work fine if you follow the basic understanding that 5th ed USRs take precedent as do certain basic army builds-IE 5th introduced standard kit-all marines have grenades(not special gear like melta bombs) at no extra cost (in previous editions they had to pay points for them) this is applied across the board for all armies retroactively and forward. tau auto get photon grenades at no cost, 3.5 chaos marines the same for krak and frags etc...

7th edition only got really silly because of formations and the removal of the standard FOC, we don't allow the first and enforce the latter.

The end result is that we have incredibly fun games that feel like they are in the 40K universe because of the lore based rules built into those prior editions. .

 aphyon wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 chromedog wrote:

I played eldar in 2nd ed. Nobody liked eldar in 2nd ed.

I liked the variety of options that Eldar had in 2nd edition. Removing the various things they had that allowed them to hide out of sight, pop out and shoot you and then disappear straight back out of sight again would probably go someway to making them more palatable to opponents.

That was just a Skimmer rule, Land Speeders could do that too.

I think you may be confusing the only glance rule in 4th ed for skimmers VS eldar wargear specifically the crystal targeting matrix that allowed eldar tanks to shoot midway in the movement phase so they could move out from behind blocking LOS cover and then back again in the movement phase and could only ever be targeted by indirect fire.

No this is 2nd edition where stationary skimmer vehicles had a specific "pop-up-attack" where they could pop up from behind a piece of terrain, looking and shooting over it, for just their spot in the shooting phase.

insaniak wrote:

dominuschao wrote:

Anyway lack of FAQ would be a potential reoccurring issue.

If you're playing with a more or less static group of people, it doesn't have to be an issue. Just start your own. That's what we used to do... any issues that come up during the game, if they can't be resolved immediately with a quick discussion on how to handle it (and the vast majority could), then we would roll off on it to keep the game going, and then in between games would discuss as a group how to handle that situation in the future. Start an FAQ document to track these decisions, if that seems necessary, although the group I mostly gamed with back in the day never found that to be necessary.

Anymore thats what we are. And we have done this in the past, even with WHF. It works ok.

aphyon wrote:
WOW, dumbfounded, 6th edition is by far considered the worst edition in that incarnation of the game, so much so even GW killed it after only 14 months. i literally killed 40K gaming at our FLGS.

There is actually very little overhaul needed using 5th ed core rules. In fact we allow players to use whichever codex they feel best represents their army and it works just fine. i use 3rd for demon hunters or witch hunters(sisters), our chaos player uses the 3.5 chaos dex. my admech uses the 7th ed codex. our guard players use the 5th ed codex etc... they all work fine if you follow the basic understanding that 5th ed USRs take precedent as do certain basic army builds-IE 5th introduced standard kit-all marines have grenades(not special gear like melta bombs) at no extra cost (in previous editions they had to pay points for them) this is applied across the board for all armies retroactively and forward. tau auto get photon grenades at no cost, 3.5 chaos marines the same for krak and frags etc...

7th edition only got really silly because of formations and the removal of the standard FOC, we don't allow the first and enforce the latter.

The end result is that we have incredibly fun games that feel like they are in the 40K universe because of the lore based rules built into those prior editions. .

Anyway you guys here are more in tune with the former editions than I am, I could just be misremembering 5th and 6th. What I recall of 5th was some codices being light years behind like dark angels. While some like nids were a complete nightmare. Although it all kinda blurs now.
And then vehicles having some balance issues with the damage table or assaults when they moved. Oh and stun locking being a thing. If this I am remembering the correct edition I used to bring loads of missiles and pretty much aim to stun each vehicle then move on to the next. Anyway 5th was really cool too. Even 7th was fun but I found myself playing unfun things like beast stars and draigo shenstars etc.

What I recall of 5th was some codices being light years behind like dark angels. While some like nids were a complete nightmare. Although it all kinda blurs now.
And then vehicles having some balance issues with the damage table or assaults when they moved. Oh and stun locking being a thing. If this I am remembering the correct edition I used to bring loads of missiles and pretty much aim to stun each vehicle then move on to the next

those things were easily fixed
1.we allow you to use any codex you want from 3rd-7th so pick the one you think best represents your army.
IE for me dark angels will always be the 3rd ed mini dex and nids will always be 4th ed

2.Vehicle damage tables were fine in 5th, but the movement VS being hit in CC table was much better in 4th so we use that as well. shaken/stun locked was easily fixed as well by bringing in snap fire from 7th ed into 5th.

Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

ccs wrote:

So active players are tuned to the current game, but don't represent the hobby.... Hows that work?

Selective quoting.

Active players don't represent the hobby as a whole.

If you want the full quote; in my experience, playgroups are generally 'active' players and typically tuned into the current 'game'. Thing is, they don't represent the hobby as a whole.

I don't see what makes this controversial, or worthy of being picked out and picked apart.

Lots of people play lots of variations of the game and/or involve themselves in some, or many and varied aspects of the hobby for lots of different reasons. Lots of people also either don't play anymore, don't play very often or used to play, or aren't interested in how the game is now, but still involve themselves in the hobby, or else at the very least, keep an eye on it.

In my experience active players (you know, people more heavily involved in clubs, flgs's tournaments and generally players outside of the 'basement scene') tend to be tuned in to the current edition more so than home brews or former editions. This is not a critical or a negative statement by the way.

Stands to reason to me that folks who would be willing to play earlier editions would more likely be drawn from those not actively involved in and embracing the current edition.

There's a bigger pool of fish out there than the 'active' scene.

ccs wrote:

And in-active/former players are more likely to play previous editions - but once they start doing that, don't they become active?

Nice word play. But it also completely misses the point.

ccs wrote:

Who exactly represents this hobby?

Everyone involved. It's a pretty broad church.

 Arschbombe wrote:
Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

5E has its own set of sins to answer for, it's just a smaller list than the other editions. It's probably the most functional core ruleset for the widest array of factions, and the one I'd probably pick if I had to, but it was by no means perfect and the codex meta wasn't particularly well balanced either.

 aphyon wrote:

1.we allow you to use any codex you want from 3rd-7th so pick the one you think best represents your army.

I finished updating a compatibility section of rules in ProHammer to support 6th/7th edition codexes. It essentially means:

(1) No psychic phase - stuff happens at the start of shooting phase if not otherwise specified. No warp charge games, master level can be ignored. I did add in a simplified Deny the Witch rule into the core rules but it only works if a psyker is present. Can choose one psychic power per mastery level (no rolling for it)

(2) Adjusted rules for flyers to be more in line with the capabilities of non-flyer vehicles in ProHammer

(3) No formations. Must use standard FoC in a single detachment.

(4) No warlord traits

(5) No Look Out sir (not needed), No challenges (clunky as hell), no precision strike (not needed with ProHammer wound allocation)

(7) No Hull Points (not needed with ProHammer vehicle damage table chaneges)

(8) No D-Strength Weapon rolls - changed to deal D3 damage on automatic wound (saves allowed), and automatically penetrates (roll damage table)

(9) Added rules for Chariots (few minot adjustments for consistency)

(10) Adjusted universal special rules in various minor ways. Removed Hammer of Wrath ability (which was freaking everywhere and not really in line with how assaults work in ProHammer)

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

5E has its own set of sins to answer for, it's just a smaller list than the other editions. It's probably the most functional core ruleset for the widest array of factions, and the one I'd probably pick if I had to, but it was by no means perfect and the codex meta wasn't particularly well balanced either.

Generally speaking, great editions are often less about the rules and more about the culture surrounding them or the place in our lives we were in when they happened. No matter how bad, every Magic set has fans who first experienced the game with those cards. Over time, the basics of the game given way to the details as we invest further and the more we focus on the details the more we find problems and the more the game becomes about wanting those problems to change. Some rulesets are still better than others, but often time the issues aren't really with the game. It's that we don't have the same friends or those friends aren't as enthusiastic as they used to be. We might have a new job or kids or other responsibilities that distract from gaming and make it harder to enjoy. These days its often the attitude of the global community that can make the experience more sour than our nostalgia recalls.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that more often then not, change is good, but change also gives us a break to realize that we're not having fun anymore. What I've found in going back is that I find a lot of the same issues I have with newer rules simply because I've changed more than the game has.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:
Interesting to see so many pointing to 5th edition as the go to edition for oldhammer. It was my favorite too. However, I went back to it once a few years ago and found it wasn't as cool as I had remembered. My opponent had the same reaction and our oldhammer effort died right then and there.

5E has its own set of sins to answer for, it's just a smaller list than the other editions. It's probably the most functional core ruleset for the widest array of factions, and the one I'd probably pick if I had to, but it was by no means perfect and the codex meta wasn't particularly well balanced either.

Generally speaking, great editions are often less about the rules and more about the culture surrounding them or the place in our lives we were in when they happened. No matter how bad, every Magic set has fans who first experienced the game with those cards. Over time, the basics of the game given way to the details as we invest further and the more we focus on the details the more we find problems and the more the game becomes about wanting those problems to change. Some rulesets are still better than others, but often time the issues aren't really with the game. It's that we don't have the same friends or those friends aren't as enthusiastic as they used to be. We might have a new job or kids or other responsibilities that distract from gaming and make it harder to enjoy. These days its often the attitude of the global community that can make the experience more sour than our nostalgia recalls.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that more often then not, change is good, but change also gives us a break to realize that we're not having fun anymore. What I've found in going back is that I find a lot of the same issues I have with newer rules simply because I've changed more than the game has.

This is also true.

Part of what I remember fondly about 5th was the fact that my friend and I were growing our armies, so every new acquisition was a new weapon that would turn the tide and give us the upper hand [until they fielded something new of their own to counter it]. This will never return.
In addition, I was very fond of the tank battles between Hammerheads and Vanquishers that we often had and the game often came down to. This was before the days of Riptides and Wraithknights that were exploiting the monstrous creature rules while obviously being vehicles, and these were our most decisive assets. All the new units introduced since then won't just go away or people don't want for them to go away, which is another reason that turning back the clock doesn't catch on except as a novelty "this was the way that way, remember those days?" game.

6th edition was a major step down from 5th edition:
Hull points changed the way vehicles interacted with AT weapons and other units in general for the much-worse.
Lords of War were added to the game
Allies were added to the game
Flyers were added to the game with their snap-shots rule
And over time, monstrous creatures proliferated from being the Tyranids and that one Grey Knight thing [which is another "should have been a vehicle that's a little older than the Riptide] to being more common ultimate units that were somewhere between a true super heavy and whatever the biggest thing was before.

For the most part, none of these things would go away if we went back in time, and people will still want to use them, which in addition to the flaws of the edition [wound allocation I remember clearly being a problem] really kills any attempt to go back.

And then there's the disagreements about what exactly is a flaw and needs fixing. I consider the general case vehicle interaction with antitank weapons an upside, because I like tanks and guns and my aspiration for a 40k game is to look like a Flames of War game. I know at least one person who would rather play a skirmish scale game without heavy units beyond armored transports at all, and to him the general trend towards tankhammer of the time was a problem.

And of course, this brings in the issue with making a homebrew system to fix problems, which is that everybody really wants different things out of the game.