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:

 GreycapTheUnwise wrote:
Given the frankly desultory state of modern 40K I'm looking at getting into 4E/3.5E. I feel it's probably the best edition with the right mix of 3rd and 4th edition books (though IIRC the only truly dreadful 4E book was the Chaos Codex, even the ones that were downgrades relative to their 3.5 counterparts were still perfectly serviceable; the Ork 4E Codex was a bit lacklustre compared to its predecessor but not dreadful by any stretch) and also the books tend to be surprisingly affordable on the aftermarket, assuming you don't just Yarr Harr them.

Many of the 3.5 and 4th ed codexes are some of the best(since the original crew was still at the helm of game development), however the core rules were overall better in 5th. thats why our group uses core 5th ed rules with a few minor tweaks but allows any codex from 3rd-7th to be used within those rules. our focus is more on classic thematic play as such with a few exceptions those codexes 3rd/4th/index astartes/forge world etc..) have the best feel to them. i absolutely love the 4th ed codexes for eldar, orks, tau, tyranids and black templar.
3.5 has some of the best stuff for power armor-chaos, witch hunters, demon hunters and a smattering of the more unique loyalist chapters like scars, iron hands, and dark angels. core space marines and guard is a toss up both the 4th and 5th ed books are really good. but 5th has more unit options so it tends to win out. aside from that in 5th the ones that really stand out as great codexes are space wolves, blood angels, dark eldar and necrons.

This is where opinions REALLY differ, as to me the 3.5 codices started the modular build thing which allowed several armies the ability to have their cake and eat it, too. Up until the Tyranid and Chaos 3.5 codex you could look across the table and figure out where your priority of fire was. After that? With modular builds, veteran skills and their equivalents, and application of "points-free" abilities, upgrades, and weaponry, it was almost impossible to know what you were really facing with certain armies. When we tossed it all, we decided to fall back to 3rd as that was probably the most structured and balanced system to us. I know our group is pretty unique in that regard, but not everyone thought the 3.5 codices were the best unless they were the ones running them. Opponents? A different story.

While I was a fan of 2nd edition and was disappointed by 3rd, having seen the editions to follow, I'd go back to 3rd. I think it was the the most streamlined, straight forward the game ever got.

But then again I didn't mind Epic Armageddon, so there's that.

3rd was done much like 8th index era. it was a new design and they went super streamlined and simple. especially if you used the base armies out of the main rulebook.
To me as a lore inspired player that isn't what i enjoy about 40K. the codexes and add-ons that reward you for playing your force to the lore of the universe, thematic army play is more to my liking as such the codexes i mentioned are my favorites for those reasons. you will always have players who will try and break the system no matter what rule set you use. it is just human nature however it breaks the gentlemen's agreement and the golden rule that used to be in the old books-namely "the game should be a fun experience for both players".

I have found that 40K specifically is a fantastic game if you approach it with the right mind set. as epic battles in the 40K universe. anything other than that it just breaks down and becomes a bad experience for the players, especially the super competitive ones who cannot handle some bad dice rolls, and GAK out even if they win the game.

What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.

 Just Tony wrote:
What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.

I like 3rd edition but am definitely fluff first game second. The 3rd edition army lists have some of the widest coverage of any edition whilst retaining decently-extensive character armouries, which is great for narrative scenarios. I do think 4th edition is a better ruleset but generally prefer 3rd edition army lists (some exceptions for early 4th codices, which still followed the late 3rd paradigm).

Aphyon mentioned that they like the 4th edition Ork codex, but I think it is a downgrade from having 9 distinct lists prior in 3rd (standard, Speed Freeks, Feral Orks, 6 clan lists). I also disliked the trend towards contracting armouries for characters, and the increasing flanderisation beginning to set in- all burnaboyz carry flamers, all tankbustas have rokkits, nobz split into melee and shooty versions etc. Skarboyz and flash gitz as veteran boyz but below nobz was also better IMO.

I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.

Honestly, 7th ed is still my favorite edition and I wish GW expanded on it more and fixed the bugs instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water with 8th.

HH v1.and v2 shows how it can be made better with tweaks and changes and how it had potential. All it took was just trimming away the GW money grubbing tendencies (removal of Formations, changing of obscene psychic powers) and focusing on what made the armies unique.

I'm just going to say it right now. In my opinion, FW always had more fun rules than GW had, and understood 40k more than GW. If the writers for forgeworld where put in charge of the space marine codexes then it would have been fluffy and fun. the GW take on the badab war chapter tactics proved it in my opinion.

from 8th edition onwards 40k felt less like 40k to me.

 aphyon wrote:
I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.

Firstly, I liked the sperate lists because they introduced restrictions as well as new options,similar to the FoC. I think some limitations on composition are good. Systems like the IG doctrines get the flexibility by building inherent restrictions in to the choices.

Secondly, you absolutely cannot make all 3rd edition lists with the 4th ed book. Feral Orks and Snake Bites are almost entirely excised. Armies of kommandos or lootas aren't possible etc.

 Haighus wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
I think the difference is much like the 4th ed eldar codex. all the options are there to build ork clanz or eldar craftworlds according to the lore with the 4th ed dexes, without requiring a specific list. it takes a bit more player knowledge of how the army is represented in the lore to choose the right units/options.

Firstly, I liked the sperate lists because they introduced restrictions as well as new options,similar to the FoC. I think some limitations on composition are good. Systems like the IG doctrines get the flexibility by building inherent restrictions in to the choices.

Secondly, you absolutely cannot make all 3rd edition lists with the 4th ed book. Feral Orks and Snake Bites are almost entirely excised. Armies of kommandos or lootas aren't possible etc.

You posted literally everything I wanted to post in response and summed up my feelings exactly. Fourth edition was the beginning of the entire warhammer Player base losing their restraint because games workshop actively encouraged them to. The best way to sum it up is have your cake and eat it, too.

Been watching Former Studio Interview YouTube shows, and it’s pretty cool to learn just how much “everyone knows” stuff, which is usually rubbish, is actually completely true.

For instance, that 1st and 2nd Ed Epic absolutely were as wildly popular as I remember. Not just pushed, but responsible for a solid percentage of Old GW’s income.

If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today. Just in terms of what armies could look like and feasibly include.

Consider that prior to the innovations of 2nd Ed, 40K had all of…erm….four, I think, plastic tank models. Rhino, Predator, Land Raider, Ork Battlewagon commercially available.

Epic at the same time? To name check but a mere handful? Leman Russ, Basilisk, Hellhound, Falcon, Vyper Jetbike, Whirlwind, Vindicator, Warp Hunter, Tempest, Knights, Titans, Baneblade, Stormhammer, Shadowsword, lots of Orky Tanks.

Epic allowed those still crafting, creating and refining 40K a much greater opportunity to populate the galaxy with all sorts of wonder weapons and craziness in a way 28mm wouldn’t allow at the time. It also lead to many WD articles on how to convert up the humble Rhino chassis into some of those (and more!) really adding to the hobby addiction side.

Epic scale also allowed for ludicrously sized engagements to be played out and, importantly, visualised, on a scale 28mm wouldn’t really allow for rules wise until the shift to the 3rd Ed style rules and really capitalised on in Apocalypse.

It set the scale and scope of 40K in our impressionable young minds. Hundreds of thousands of troops being thrown into remorseless meat grinders against city levelling weapons. It bridge that divide between mind’s eye and reality.

I’d love to see the old Orky tanks done in 28mm, I really would.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Been watching Former Studio Interview YouTube shows, and it’s pretty cool to learn just how much “everyone knows” stuff, which is usually rubbish, is actually completely true.

For instance, that 1st and 2nd Ed Epic absolutely were as wildly popular as I remember. Not just pushed, but responsible for a solid percentage of Old GW’s income.

If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today. Just in terms of what armies could look like and feasibly include.

Consider that prior to the innovations of 2nd Ed, 40K had all of…erm….four, I think, plastic tank models. Rhino, Predator, Land Raider, Ork Battlewagon commercially available.

Epic at the same time? To name check but a mere handful? Leman Russ, Basilisk, Hellhound, Falcon, Vyper Jetbike, Whirlwind, Vindicator, Warp Hunter, Tempest, Knights, Titans, Baneblade, Stormhammer, Shadowsword, lots of Orky Tanks.

Epic allowed those still crafting, creating and refining 40K a much greater opportunity to populate the galaxy with all sorts of wonder weapons and craziness in a way 28mm wouldn’t allow at the time. It also lead to many WD articles on how to convert up the humble Rhino chassis into some of those (and more!) really adding to the hobby addiction side.

Epic scale also allowed for ludicrously sized engagements to be played out and, importantly, visualised, on a scale 28mm wouldn’t really allow for rules wise until the shift to the 3rd Ed style rules and really capitalised on in Apocalypse.

It set the scale and scope of 40K in our impressionable young minds. Hundreds of thousands of troops being thrown into remorseless meat grinders against city levelling weapons. It bridge that divide between mind’s eye and reality.

I’d love to see the old Orky tanks done in 28mm, I really would.

Epic is a game that is just always out of reach, but I wholeheartedly agree. I wish Imperialis was given a better shot by GW cause it's the closest thing we got... I would love to see (see, not paint or build) factions like the orks or tyranids in that scale too, it's a fricken great system.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If we go right right back to Epic’s earliest days (an edition outside of AT I never played)? It does seem to have been the secret sauce that made 40k the cultural juggernaut it is today.

'Codex Titanicus' was the book that tied Adeptus Titanicus and all the white dwarf articles together, though 2nd edition is when the game really branched out into other factions.

 Just Tony wrote:
What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.

I disliked 3rd ed both because of the lack of fluff and because it was really, really boring to play.

3rd was widely criticised all through its lifespan for having had all of the fun stripped out of it. I strongly suspect that most of the love for the system now comes from people looking back at it fondly in contrast to the utter chaos that came later, rather than because it was a good game in its own right.

Shrug.

No other edition has had an army list for drop podding nuns on an assassination mission, or feral orks.

The breadth of 3rd remains unparalleled IMO.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Epic is a game that is just always out of reach, but I wholeheartedly agree. I wish Imperialis was given a better shot by GW cause it's the closest thing we got... I would love to see (see, not paint or build) factions like the orks or tyranids in that scale too, it's a fricken great system.

Epic was (is) a great system. But LI is such a bad game... it is way worse that any of the previous versions.

Instead of doing like in TOW (take the best of previous editions), they just took the worst

 insaniak wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
What I found out is that people who want game first, fluff second, absolutely adore Third as a rule set whereas people who want fluff first, game second, don't like it as a rule set.

I disliked 3rd ed both because of the lack of fluff and because it was really, really boring to play.

3rd was widely criticised all through its lifespan for having had all of the fun stripped out of it. I strongly suspect that most of the love for the system now comes from people looking back at it fondly in contrast to the utter chaos that came later, rather than because it was a good game in its own right.

3rd was the first edition that GW decided that they wanted their miniatures wargame to actually BE a miniatures wargame rather than a miniature heavy RPG. The outcry you speak of is from those that WANTED the RPG and didn't represent the whole of the fanbase at the time. The success of 3rd, from both a sales and saturation point, is a clear indicator of this.

Loud vocal minorities have been a thing in the player base since the player base existed.

3rd was necessary, but for me went much too far in the other direction.

I’ve never liked the “all or nothing” save system, nor the general removal of modifiers.

What the right mix would be? Well if I’m honest I’m not persuaded GW has struck it yet.

Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.

honestly I like the all or nothing AP system myself.

it means that you need the good guns for units like terminators like melta or plasma guns, or bring something else specialized. I think that HH2 handles them fairly well.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.

Terminators being the other really obvious example. Even after GW erratad in an invulnerable save for them, the downgrade in 3rd was just awful...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
3rd was necessary, but for me went much too far in the other direction.

I’ve never liked the “all or nothing” save system, nor the general removal of modifiers.

What the right mix would be? Well if I’m honest I’m not persuaded GW has struck it yet.

Worst of all for me? Elite Units just sort of stopped feeling Elite. My classic example of this would be Howling Banshees. In 2nd Ed? Utterly murderous. In 3rd Ed? A soggy blanket. And yes that’s another “there is middle ground you know” example.

Don't forget the grenades. Abstracting grenades was one change I could never get used to, no matter how necessary for gameplay. I was a young man and grenades were cool!

Grenades in 2nd ed definitely needed toning down - should have only been one or two per unit, rather than having entire squads throwing templates about. And ongoing effects from smoke or plasma could very quickly become a bit of a chore to manage (at least for the dreaded Vortex Grenade there was usually only one, occasionally two on the table at one time).

Abstracting them was GW's usual pendulum approach - grenades are over the top, so effectively remove them completely.

It's a shame they didn't find a happy medium. Throwing Scare and Toxin and other grenades with their own moving clouds is fun but complicated. Abstracted grenades is simple but much less fun.
In the end they wanted people to buy bigger armies, so the rules had to be simplified.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

In the end they wanted people to buy bigger armies, so the rules had to be simplified.

While it's fun to complain about GW making decisions based on what makes them the most profit, to be fair it's worth pointing out that the people also wanted to buy bigger armies. Throughout 2nd edition, players kept pushing for larger and larger games. Anecdotal, but by the end of 2nd edition, the group I gamed with was regularly playing 3-5000 points. There was a well-attended gaming club in the city I was living in at the time called '5000+ Gamers'. Players wanted a system that catered for those sort of games without taking two weeks to play, and GW gave it to them.

I'm quite sure that the ultimate motive was to sell more models, but the reason it worked is that that's what the players wanted as well.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm quite sure that the ultimate motive was to sell more models, but the reason it worked is that that's what the players wanted as well.

Oh yes of course, I can remember everyone wanted to play huge apocalypse games like the Heretic battle report in WD. But maybe, in hindsight, it was the wrong direction for the community to go in.

I don't think it was inherently the wrong direction, it just suffered from GW's pendulum approach to rules changes. Instead of taking the 2nd edition system and streamlining the parts that made it particularly chunky, they stripped the whole thing down to its bare bones.

I just wonder what might've been if we had left 40K to be a relatively skirmish-like game and kept Epic as the big battle game. But who knows?

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:
I just wonder what might've been if we had left 40K to be a relatively skirmish-like game and kept Epic as the big battle game. But who knows?

I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.

Honestly, epic should have been around all this time regardless. The fact that it was vital to 40k’s fluff in the long run, and as a side game could have been a fun skirmish game in the side. Maybe give it out to another company like FFG or something.

Man… I want to 3D print an epic army now.

 Just Tony wrote:
I would have left the game. Pure and simple. GW gave us Inquisitor as an outlet for those that wanted the level of minutiae that the player base wanted. The fact that it didn't stick around tells me more about how large that section of the player base was. Or, rather, how small that section of the player base was.

I can see what you mean to an extent. I don't think Inquisitor is really a game similar to 2nd ed 40K. That would be kind of like saying D&D and the Castle Ravenloft board game were a similar experience.

Just IMO, and very IMO, what we are left with now is a kind of large battles / skirmish Frankenstein's monster where it matters what pants my Chaos Lord is wearing but also I have a building size robot and a supersonic aircraft.

For me, ditching AV for S, T and W worked for 40K. Whilst I’ve only played a handful of games since that change, it does feel better than the old AV system, where a single Meltagun up the rear exhaust could just blat any tank.

And when Knights are kicking about, being pretty much immune to most weapons under AV? It wasn’t much fun to face them.