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.

 Mezmorki wrote:
FWIW, I recently bought used versions of older 5th edition codexes I was missing for less than $5 shipped in most cases. Lots of older stuff floating around for cheap.

The majority of these were purchased on eBay for about $5 each:

I would love it. No restartes. No flyers. Return of wargear that costs points. Nix stratagems. Nix cp. bring back move and initiative.

Massively offtopic, but I think "they are bringing fantasy back" is probably a skewed view of what Warhammer Old World ends up being.

I expect its going to be more like "Fantasy 30k - where human factions are all the marines". Focus on low fantasy (more the RPG than say 8th) and possibly "classical/medieval battlefield verisimilitude" to differentiate with AoS which is very much "a game".

Can't see it happen as it would be almost copycat competition against their primary product. With AoS and Old World there is a certain schism there as one is skirmish and the other is rank and file.

I think this is the reason also why we haven't seen Epic 40k return with specialist games as Epic 40k would be a direct competitor to the core game. At least with Apocalypse you still have to buy 40k models that also work for Kill Team.

Tyel wrote:
Massively offtopic, but I think "they are bringing fantasy back" is probably a skewed view of what Warhammer Old World ends up being.

I expect its going to be more like "Fantasy 30k - where human factions are all the marines". Focus on low fantasy (more the RPG than say 8th) and possibly "classical/medieval battlefield verisimilitude" to differentiate with AoS which is very much "a game".

Maybe. But I think it will be something more like this: take the rules for AOS but require that all battleline models be placed on square bases or on movement trays to form rank and file blocks of troops. Then introduce rules for moving/pivoting said blocks of troops. Voila! "Classic" Warhammer Fantasy!

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People always say "GW will never support older editions" when GW has announced they will be doing exactly that with Warhammer Fantasy.

no they are not
the never claimed to support the old system nor did anyone said that it will be a reboot based on old rules

we know nothing what GW is going to to here, except that is background setting will be inside the old old world.

Well, yes we do, because of the trailer available here (youtube link).

It's a square base, explicitly saying square bases are coming back. Why does this mean what is returning is significant? Well:

1) Square bases aren't useful for skirmish games or board games. Round bases make much more sense, because it gives the player the freedom to face the model any direction without there being any rules-related consequences. So it isn't a skirmish game or board game, most likely.

2) Squares ARE useful for ranking up in big mobs, because you can put them edge to edge and they tesselate nicely (unlike rounds). This indicates that what is coming is likely going to be a rank&flank game with enough people that tessellating large numbers of them together is useful. Therefore, it's likely to be a mass battle game.

3) The square is plastic and uniform. If it was a rectangle, that would suggest a mass-battle system in the Field of Glory or Kings of War style where you're expected to mount several miniatures on a single base. This indicates a single miniature per base, i.e. warhammer fantasy style.

4) It's explicitly set in warhammer's Old World.

5) it's several years away, indicating more development time than a simple AOS port (possibly new models, certainly new rules can be done in that time).

So we have:
1) Not a skirmish or board game.
2) Rank&Flank Mass battle game.
3) 1 miniature per base.
4) Set in the Warhammer Old World.
5) Requiring greater development time than AOS, possibly in models and certainly in rules.

I think I can guess what system it will be very similar to, in its final iteration...

Hecaton wrote:
I would love a game that consciously evokes the "platoon-level" conflict that 40k in earlier editions seemed to model. Kill Team is fun but too small for that.

THIS

Combat patrol -sized armies but rules closer to Kill Team / Necromunda than regular 40K would be my ideal flavour of 40K as well. Keep it skirmish.

Wouldn't mind playing Rogue Trader with modern miniatures either but I got no connections to people who'd be into it

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People always say "GW will never support older editions" when GW has announced they will be doing exactly that with Warhammer Fantasy.

no they are not
the never claimed to support the old system nor did anyone said that it will be a reboot based on old rules

we know nothing what GW is going to to here, except that is background setting will be inside the old old world.

Well, yes we do, because of the trailer available here (youtube link).

just that this trailer does not sopport your claim that they will do a legacy
Don't want to kill your Dreams but:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

1) Square bases aren't useful for skirmish games or board games. Round bases make much more sense, because it gives the player the freedom to face the model any direction without there being any rules-related consequences. So it isn't a skirmish game or board game, most likely.

2) Squares ARE useful for ranking up in big mobs, because you can put them edge to edge and they tesselate nicely (unlike rounds). This indicates that what is coming is likely going to be a rank&flank game with enough people that tessellating large numbers of them together is useful. Therefore, it's likely to be a mass battle game.

3) The square is plastic and uniform. If it was a rectangle, that would suggest a mass-battle system in the Field of Glory or Kings of War style where you're expected to mount several miniatures on a single base. This indicates a single miniature per base, i.e. warhammer fantasy style.

4) It's explicitly set in warhammer's Old World.

1) lot of Skirmish Games or Boardgames use Suqare Bases, specially those with Formations or Facings (SAGA, Vanguard, Mortheim)
2) no, the one thing that matters here are unit bases, and it does not matter if you use square or round bases for that
3) funny thing, Mantic Minis come with square bases as well
4) yes, which means the background setting, not the rules system

so we have:
it is a game set in the old World, because of other teasers likely during the 3 Emperors and Vampire Wars
anything else is unkown and there is no indication at all that it will be a legacy rules system or support for previous rules

and if your claim is that it just needs to be a Rank&File System to be "Support for old Editions", well than Kings of War is also support for old Editions

 Gnarlly wrote:
Maybe. But I think it will be something more like this: take the rules for AOS but require that all battleline models be placed on square bases or on movement trays to form rank and file blocks of troops. Then introduce rules for moving/pivoting said blocks of troops. Voila! "Classic" Warhammer Fantasy!

I mean they could, but if so it will suck, for similar reasons 8th sucked.

I think the core view will be "how do we make 20 man blocks of infantry not feel like total rubbish". You can't really square that with "hahaha my wizard will just keep dodging out of charge arcs while 6 dicing dwellers".

If you want a game of heroes and monsters, AoS is right there.

Yea I think that would be really cool.

It would be worth remembering what they aim for when remastering computer games; the aim is not to replicate what the older versions actually were, but rather what we remember them being through the lens of nostalgia.

I feel you. I don't play anymore but it's certainly frustrating to build armies with an eye on their rules only to watch new codexes or design approaches make those armies ineffective. Army-wide rules where a subfaction of a particular colour scheme suddenly only wants to be focused on close combat or the like are big offenders here.

I think the Legacy format in Magic: The Gathering might be an interesting point of discussion here.

Magic normally is focused on Standard, which means you are only allowed to play cards that have been released in the last 1-2 years. In 40k terms this is a constantly changing meta based on the most recent army releases.

But there is also Legacy format, which means you are allowed to play almost any card from the game's entire history. Which in effect means that you mostly play the cool but overpowered older cards, with the occasional new and overpowered (or simply very flexible or unusual) card slipping through and adding a bit of spice and forward momentum. So the game evolves but it doesn't get rebooted.

In 40k terms what this would look like is this:

1. Pick an old edition and its codexes
2. Possibly go back and amend those rules and codexes to fix obvious design mistakes
3. Never change those rules again
4. Make new rules for the new models that come out so they can also be played
5. Repeat steps 2 and 3 for these new model rules too

Eh, I just went back to playing 3rd. I don't need GW to make it official as long as I have opponents.

As said above, GW's nostalgia-bait "Old World" game is almost certainly going to be more in the range of specialist games like Adeptus Titanicus or Blood Bowl.

And their Heresy game (and it's variants like AT) pretty much do the same job for 40K. It uses old rules along with more desaturated colour-palette and such for a "mature" audience, etc.. for the full-on nostalgia-package.

I'd totally play a "classic 5th" from time to time, IF:

- the rules were brought up to modern standards. Interpreting ambiguous prose has always been a nightmare. Properly keyword and sort everything like they have done in 9th without changing how the rules work, and I'm game.
- they add all new releases to the rule set. LoW would still be limited to apoc/spearhead and fliers would revert to being fast skimmers in fast attack, but everything else should be available

 jeff white wrote:
I would love it. No restartes. No flyers. Return of wargear that costs points. Nix stratagems. Nix cp. bring back move and initiative.

I love 3rd and 5th, definitely more than 9th but I do prefer the loss of initiative (I may be biased on this as I mostly play and army that used to have very low I), blasts/templates, fire arcs and the AV system. I also like clans/chapters related bonuses.

I share the dislike to flyers, LoWs, superheroes, stratagems, CPs though, plus the easy access to deepstrike and re-rolls. Not to mention all the options to customize characters that are gone.

Eldarsif wrote:Can't see it happen as it would be almost copycat competition against their primary product. With AoS and Old World there is a certain schism there as one is skirmish and the other is rank and file.

I think this is the reason also why we haven't seen Epic 40k return with specialist games as Epic 40k would be a direct competitor to the core game. At least with Apocalypse you still have to buy 40k models that also work for Kill Team.

Yes although (from what I have read) all of the old epic miniatures and moulds were destroyed - so would necessitate new sculpting and production. Also, even if some survived, the latest snapshot of Epic (Armageddon) was around 4th edition (I think) so would need a lot of design catch-up of new sculpts.
A lot of the miniatures in the 40k range, even from the very old editions, were still available until fairly recently so perhaps more chance they are still available? Put them in a fancy new box, add a 'retro' 40k logo and you would be good to go, no new sculpting or design needed.
Perhaps a publication of rules or codex could be made 'print on demand' of those old books, in the same way Black Library has republished some old titles?

tauist wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
I would love a game that consciously evokes the "platoon-level" conflict that 40k in earlier editions seemed to model. Kill Team is fun but too small for that.

THIS

Combat patrol -sized armies but rules closer to Kill Team / Necromunda than regular 40K would be my ideal flavour of 40K as well. Keep it skirmish.

Wouldn't mind playing Rogue Trader with modern miniatures either but I got no connections to people who'd be into it

As a few guys have said in the thread there are some pretty good Oldhammer facebook groups. I don't know about specific forums for oldhammer, if there are any?
Maybe we need a legacy 40k subforum in the same way as one exists for WHFB?

Sunny Side Up wrote:As said above, GW's nostalgia-bait "Old World" game is almost certainly going to be more in the range of specialist games like Adeptus Titanicus or Blood Bowl.

And their Heresy game (and it's variants like AT) pretty much do the same job for 40K. It uses old rules along with more desaturated colour-palette and such for a "mature" audience, etc.. for the full-on nostalgia-package.

Yes, although to me 30k is still too much like the current iteration of the game, with pie-plate templates destroying £100 of miniatures on a dice roll.
It's kind of like a later Smashing Pumpkins album from a few years ago where they are doing weird electronic stuff, which is ok and you will give it a go, but really you want them to do Bullet with Butterfly wings
I think it is definitely catering to an audience (if you had a Venn diagram or something, there would be overlap) but not entirely scratching the same itch.

OP, you can already do this kind of game by choosing whatever ruleset, points and choices limits that you and your opponent fancy.

GW won’t make it market a specific variant though.

Thing is, I like the rebooted marines.

Any kind of 'classic 40k' to me sounds like 'go play third ed'. And the thing is, all the classic editions of the game were horrendously flawed, Which makes it more frustrating than appealing.

Which, for me, makes the exercise less 'play a classic edition' and more 'base it on 4th, plus tweaks and limits'.

That said, if you were to use the scale and scope of third ed (biggest thing is a land raider or wraithlord), gut the gamey-ness introduced since 7th, and use some combination of edition best bits, I'd listen.

Deadnight wrote:
Thing is, I like the rebooted marines.

Any kind of 'classic 40k' to me sounds like 'go play third ed'. And the thing is, all the classic editions of the game were horrendously flawed, Which makes it more frustrating than appealing.

Which, for me, makes the exercise less 'play a classic edition' and more 'base it on 4th, plus tweaks and limits'.

That said, if you were to use the scale and scope of third ed (biggest thing is a land raider or wraithlord), gut the gamey-ness introduced since 7th, and use some combination of edition best bits, I'd listen.

Problem being I don't want to play with or against rebooted marines. The favoritism has gotten too far out of hand.

Nope. Opportunity cost, split community, split sales. And general inability for a consensus on what's the 'correct' classic version,

Wow classic is pretty much a perfect example, as they dumped a lot of money and time into it and produced lackluster expansion material for the live game while trying to chase the nostalgia crowd. No idea if it is ultimately profitable or not, but they sacrificed a lot to do it.
Even then, being able do it functionally at all was dependent on the live service and computer game model, which isn't a factor for a minis game.

For warhammer, this is a thing a local group can just decide to do. On a large scale, company project, it's just absolute disaster.

all the classic editions of the game were horrendously flawed

ROFLOL...and you don't think 8th/9th are? with 3 SM codex updates in less than 2 years? with a total focus on comp player and an MTG style damage buff/debuff system?

Every edition has had it's flaws, but by far the core rules set for 5th was far better than anything that is out now. most complaints were about the wound allocation system because WAAC players found a way to abuse it. There was a bit of codex power creep but that has always been a (feature) "problem" to help GW sell more minis.

By comparison however all types of armies were viable from every faction. rather you want well rounded, melee focused, or gun lines etc....

I just did a battle last week of 5th with a CC oriented nid army VS khorne while he was still more CC oriented than normal marines he still had quite a bit of shooting compared to mine that were basically limited to a couple carnifexes and a zoanathrope it was a brutal but close(and most importantly -fun) battle that i managed to win.

"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

SecondTime wrote:
"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

The competitive players are happy to spam minis they don't like to win. I'm not happy to get constantly steamrolled because I refuse to spam minis I don't like.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

The competitive players are happy to spam minis they don't like to win. I'm not happy to get constantly steamrolled because I refuse to spam minis I don't like.

There shouldn't be minis that you get a huge benefit from spamming. Competitive players seek them out, but casuals can bumble into them. Either way, its bad.

SecondTime wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

The competitive players are happy to spam minis they don't like to win. I'm not happy to get constantly steamrolled because I refuse to spam minis I don't like.

There shouldn't be minis that you get a huge benefit from spamming. Competitive players seek them out, but casuals can bumble into them. Either way, its bad.

There shouldn't be, sure, but GW loves it when there is because then they sell out of something, and then they can nerf it into dust and make something else OP in the next update.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

The competitive players are happy to spam minis they don't like to win. I'm not happy to get constantly steamrolled because I refuse to spam minis I don't like.

There shouldn't be minis that you get a huge benefit from spamming. Competitive players seek them out, but casuals can bumble into them. Either way, its bad.

There shouldn't be, sure, but GW loves it when there is because then they sell out of something, and then they can nerf it into dust and make something else OP in the next update.

This had been debated quite a bit. Don't we think that GW loses more sales than gains by doing this? Also, why is there no rhyme or reason to what's OP? Why make 20 year old Eldar sculpts the gak for like three editions? Why release brand new models with terrible rules?

SecondTime wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...There shouldn't be, sure, but GW loves it when there is because then they sell out of something, and then they can nerf it into dust and make something else OP in the next update.

This had been debated quite a bit. Don't we think that GW loses more sales than gains by doing this? Also, why is there no rhyme or reason to what's OP? Why make 20 year old Eldar sculpts the gak for like three editions? Why release brand new models with terrible rules?

Oh, I agree there's no rhyme or reason and it's probably not deliberate, but whenever I ask anyone "what am I doing wrong?" after a game of 9th the answer is usually "all your minis are crap, go spend $500 on the maximum field allowance of something completely different."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
...There shouldn't be, sure, but GW loves it when there is because then they sell out of something, and then they can nerf it into dust and make something else OP in the next update.

This had been debated quite a bit. Don't we think that GW loses more sales than gains by doing this? Also, why is there no rhyme or reason to what's OP? Why make 20 year old Eldar sculpts the gak for like three editions? Why release brand new models with terrible rules?

Oh, I agree there's no rhyme or reason and it's probably not deliberate, but whenever I ask anyone "what am I doing wrong?" after a game of 9th the answer is usually "all your minis are crap, go spend $500 on the maximum field allowance of something completely different."

I'm in COVID lockdown, so I've only played on TT simulator. I've watched a TON of batreps so I know what I'm doing with Necrons when I do get to play. Armies with melee elements seem to do better, which I why I'm going Novokh with Necrons. Models being invalidated randomly has always been a model with the way GW does business.

The Wraithknight story is partially informative, but was also really extreme.

SecondTime wrote:
"total focus on comp player"

In theory, if it works for those people, it should work for the casual.

No it doesn't because the style of play is antithetical to casual players. we want lore and immersion, a fun game to play, not a nearly complete focus on the win/damage output.

To me the entire primaris line is as macca from the outer circle said an attempt to homogenise the line and make the appeal of the various chapters more vanilla, shifting the game away from the reason why the casual players play and design the armies that they do.

 aphyon wrote:

all the classic editions of the game were horrendously flawed

Every edition has had it's flaws, but by far the core rules set for 5th was far better than anything that is out now. most complaints were about the wound allocation system because WAAC players found a way to abuse it. There was a bit of codex power creep but that has always been a (feature) "problem" to help GW sell more minis.

By comparison however all types of armies were viable from every faction. rather you want well rounded, melee focused, or gun lines etc....

I just did a battle last week of 5th with a CC oriented nid army VS khorne while he was still more CC oriented than normal marines he still had quite a bit of shooting compared to mine that were basically limited to a couple carnifexes and a zoanathrope it was a brutal but close(and most importantly -fun) battle that i managed to win.

BS

I remember the 5th edition Tyranid codex, it was an unplayable mess. Your nostalgia googles are too damn strong.

This was the edition that made Carnifexes, Tyranid Warriors and Genestealers unplayable because Cruddace was salty he lost against 4th edition Nids once.