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.

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

 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.

Yeah, Inquisitor was not remotely providing the same experience as 2nd ed 40K, nor was it designed to. It was an attempt to make more of an RPG. It was a game that nobody had asked for, in a scale that nobody wanted, and it was poorly supported, and so didn't really go anywhere.

It would've maybe not succeeded but have done better in 28mm. When it came out me and my friends at the time said 'lol action figures' and had zero interest.
Is it just me or were GWs 54mm figures particularly bad? Or is it just an uncanny valley of seeing your 28mm world in 54mm?

I think that boils down to opinion. I really liked the Inquisitor model range.

Just me then I just don't like 54mm

Yeah, the initial Inquisitor range was really, really good. They got worse as they went along, and never included anywhere near the range that the game demanded.

They absolutely should have gone with 28mm, in plastic with a host of modular conversion parts. Would have been a nice draw for a game that by its nature screamed for easily convertible miniatures (but only provided them in expensive metal) and would also have sold like hotcakes to 40K players for character conversions. And would have meant that players could also use their existing collections of 40K-scaled terrain, rather than having to build new terrain that would likely see limited use, in a larger (more difficult to store) scale.


The concept of the game was great. But it really feels like one of those things that was developed as someone's passion project, and nobody took the time to stop and think it through properly before release.

Would've been very easy to tie into the various Inq forces in 3rd ed too, so 40k and Inq could've been gateways for each other.

A 28mm Inquisitor build kit would have been a product that players would still be seeking and talking about fondly if they had done it. The models were great, but trying to build a game around them? Not so much. Our group was of the opinion that if GW wanted to sell larger scale showcase minis, they could have done it without a game attached and they would have still sold.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

I'm just the opposite, i prefer the more simulation style of game. AT weapons are designed to one shot tanks. that is why i like the damage table. yeah you have a really good chance to kill it in one go with a good hit or otherwise damage it in some way. i absolutely hate everything about hull points and the GW version of the wound system post 7th. the only game i have seen get it right is DUST 1947 that uses a wound system for vehicles but light non-AT weapons cannot even hurt the ones with heavier armor (IE machineguns can hurt open topped vehicles by way of killing the crew, RPGs will do major damage to light and medium vehicles, less so against heavy and super heavies. the most powerful guns in the game like rail guns will on average take a minimum of 2 shots to kill the heaviest of vehicles).

One shotting vehicles is also not something 40K did alone, flames of war, battle tech, heavy gear etc... also have mechanics that do the same thing.

I also never had any trouble killing knights or warhounds for that matter. especially using the original FW rules for superheavies designed for normal games of 40K (pre-apocalypse rules). assuming they fail the ion shield save.

They did do large scale collector's models through Forgeworld back in the day, but they were hideously expensive. Sideshow did a short-lived range of painted figurines as well (mostly Space Marines).

After seeing some of GW's 3-ups at a Games Day back in the day, I always thought that limited runs of those as collector's minis would have done well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:
I'm just the opposite, i prefer the more simulation style of game. AT weapons are designed to one shot tanks. that is why i like the damage table. yeah you have a really good chance to kill it in one go with a good hit or otherwise damage it in some way. i absolutely hate everything about hull points and the GW version of the wound system post 7th. the only game i have seen get it right is DUST 1947 that uses a wound system for vehicles but light non-AT weapons cannot even hurt the ones with heavier armor (IE machineguns can hurt open topped vehicles by way of killing the crew, RPGs will do major damage to light and medium vehicles, less so against heavy and super heavies. the most powerful guns in the game like rail guns will on average take a minimum of 2 shots to kill the heaviest of vehicles).

One shotting vehicles is also not something 40K did alone, flames of war, battle tech, heavy gear etc... also have mechanics that do the same thing.

I also never had any trouble killing knights or warhounds for that matter. especially using the original FW rules for superheavies designed for normal games of 40K (pre-apocalypse rules). assuming they fail the ion shield save.

I'm ok with games leaning into the simulation angle, but the ability to one-shot characters and vehicles should (IMO) be tied to the scale of the game. In smaller, skirmish games, losing your big hitters to a single enemy shot is annoying... The Space Marine Vindicator I built in early 3rd edition didn't actually get to fire a shot at an enemy until at least 5th or 6th edition, because it was constantly destroyed before I got to do anything with it. In a game where you have multiple vehicles, this becomes less of a problem, but when the game size means you only have one or two in the force, it's discouraging.

Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon. I laughed, my opponent was... less impressed. So we started over with a new mission rather than play out the game, so that he would actually get to use his shiny new model.

Simulation is great, but it's also important to consider that people want to be able to use their models.

 Just Tony wrote:

 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.

And why not Epic?

I dont mind games where a Lascannon oneshots a powerful HQ. Teaches that player a lesson about not leaving his valuable characters in a position where they can be Lascannoned. This is teaching real strategy & tactics IMO. Avoiding "feelsbad" makes for boring, casual family games

 insaniak wrote:
Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon.

To be fair placing your HQ as the closest model to you opponents lascannons on the first turn is akin to playing chess by running you king up the board unsupported.

But of course not everyone wants to play chess.

SU-152 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 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.

And why not Epic?

Not a fan of micromachines, for one, and I detested the gameplay. It's also why I'd take a bullet to the testicles before I'll every play Warmaster again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cap'n Facebeard wrote:

 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.

I'm just of the opinion that 3rd's abstraction was perfect for me, and that if I wanted to roleplay, I'd simply play a roleplaying game. I don't need it in my miniatures game. Same principle behind the card-based minigames in older editions of Warhammer. Two separate games, and I'd leave them as such.

Think my next project might be Man O’War.

A game I absolutely adored, and may still lurk in Dad’s attic. Will check when I’m up for the funeral.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Think my next project might be Man O’War.

A game I absolutely adored, and may still lurk in Dad’s attic. Will check when I’m up for the funeral.

I have delusions of same. Have downloaded many STL ship files as I only owned High and Dark Elves in original metal. Printed a few. Hope your stuff is still around!

A.T. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Likewise, I can recall a 2nd edition game with a mate shortly after the Abaddon model was released, where I had the Assassins mission, and effectively finished the game on my first turn by drilling Abaddon with a lascannon.

To be fair placing your HQ as the closest model to you opponents lascannons on the first turn is akin to playing chess by running you king up the board unsupported.

But of course not everyone wants to play chess.

He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.

 insaniak wrote:
He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.

Page 29 :
"A squad or model may also choose to shoot at a building or a specific game objective, for example storage tanks, generators, energy lines, supporting pylons, and so forth."

It's for shooting at pre-agreed scenery pieces in custom scenarios. And frankly would be in violation of the most important rule if it wasn't.

I will say that the biggest thing I like recently from 9th was the huge variety of custom chapter tactics, forgeworlds and regiments. I wish the other editions had that too before they tossed it out like a fat man tossing away a candy wrapper.

A.T. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
He wasn't the closest model. 2nd edition allowed you to target mission objectives instead of the closest enemy.

Page 29 :
"A squad or model may also choose to shoot at a building or a specific game objective, for example storage tanks, generators, energy lines, supporting pylons, and so forth."

It's for shooting at pre-agreed scenery pieces in custom scenarios. And frankly would be in violation of the most important rule if it wasn't.

In The Assassin's mission, the enemy commander was 'a specific game objective', and that's how we always played it in that mission.

Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

Just ebay if you want the books, but I keep a dropbox of the old website errata should you need them.

 aphyon wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K

this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K

this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e

Fantastic!

All 3rd - 7th ed book are cross compatible core mechanics wise. you just play them within the confines of the 5th ed core rules and USRs. we made a few minor tweaks to make things run smoother like using the 4th ed wound allocation rules instead of 5th to avoid abuses. for more details i have topics on the rules

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806639.page

And actual real world game experiences where we regularly put different codexes up against each other from various editions within the frame work of 5th ed core rules. we did 4 games last weekend that used codexex from 3.5, 4th, and 5th ed.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

The reality is that it is much less about what codex you use and much more to do with your attitude towards the game and what you do on the table. the current edition for example practically requires you to bring "the best" units in your codex/balance pass or you will loose the game pretty well every time (as one of our converts from 10th likes to point out) compared to 5th edition where, within the confines of the FOC, you can bring any unit you like for any reason you like and still have a chance to win the game given how the mechanics work. this is a positive for me because it allows players to bring what minis they like, not what they have to take.

Even though meta builds existed in every edition, you end up with some very different army builds on the table. our 2 regular 3.5 iron warriors players have very different lists for example, but both are very much iron warriors style armies in accordance with the lore.

 aphyon wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Man, I am on an old hammer kick. Aside from just googling it, are there any easy repositories of 4th ed rules and supplements? Kinda like a wahapedia thing?

Welcome to the club, i went on the oldhammer kick when 8th ed dropped with a small group of friends, it has never been better, we have 20+ players in our local area that play house 5th ed 40K

this is gonna sound wierd, but how is it playing 5th ed with 3e/4e books? like 5th ed as a concept much more, but I am falling in love with the fluffy army building of 4e

Fantastic!

All 3rd - 7th ed book are cross compatible core mechanics wise. you just play them within the confines of the 5th ed core rules and USRs. we made a few minor tweaks to make things run smoother like using the 4th ed wound allocation rules instead of 5th to avoid abuses. for more details i have topics on the rules

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/806639.page

And actual real world game experiences where we regularly put different codexes up against each other from various editions within the frame work of 5th ed core rules. we did 4 games last weekend that used codexex from 3.5, 4th, and 5th ed.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page

The reality is that it is much less about what codex you use and much more to do with your attitude towards the game and what you do on the table. the current edition for example practically requires you to bring "the best" units in your codex/balance pass or you will loose the game pretty well every time (as one of our converts from 10th likes to point out) compared to 5th edition where, within the confines of the FOC, you can bring any unit you like for any reason you like and still have a chance to win the game given how the mechanics work. this is a positive for me because it allows players to bring what minis they like, not what they have to take.

Even though meta builds existed in every edition, you end up with some very different army builds on the table. our 2 regular 3.5 iron warriors players have very different lists for example, but both are very much iron warriors style armies in accordance with the lore.

That is very good to know! I did love playing my admec in 7th ed, but I do worry it may be a bit much to bring a full on army with knights, skitarii and cults against other and older codexes. I would have to see if it would feel dirty or not, I played a 7th ed game recently against a demon summoning army and it was a blow out on my side, despite my opponent rolling perfectly to summon 3 big demon units.

The other way I can see running something is using HH1 as a rule basis instead of 5th ed for 7th, but again would have to see how that works.

I also run an admech list from 7th in our 5th ed games.

I have a mix of skitari infiltrators, cataphron breachers/destroyers, dune crawlers and occasionally i will toss in my warhound or macharius (i play FW lucius so it fits the theme).

To fit within the 5th ed USRs i just use move through cover in place of dune strider as they represent the same ability. as well as the fact everything in 5th has fixed movement distances based on unit types. all infantry move 6" can run a d6" and charge 6" so the extra 3" of movement is ignored/replaced.

As for using knights they work perfectly fine. they are the equivalent of other light superheavies like the macharius-2 structure points. they can walk 12" fire all their guns (at different targets) they can sprint at 18" and only fire one gun, or they can flat out run for 24" but cannot shoot any weapons or charge if they do so.

Also all imperial superheavies count as having an onboard tech marine that can repair damage (not structure) on a 5+

I suggest the original imperial armor volume 1 (first edition) superheavy damage table as it was made for using superheavies in normal games of 40K before apocalypse or D weapons were a thing. it makes them center piece models, but not game breakingly over powered especially with the original weapons profiles( IE turbo laser destructors were just las cannon profile S9 AP2 but small blast instead of a single shot with a 60" range)

 aphyon wrote:
I also run an admech list from 7th in our 5th ed games.

I have a mix of skitari infiltrators, cataphron breachers/destroyers, dune crawlers and occasionally i will toss in my warhound or macharius (i play FW lucius so it fits the theme).

To fit within the 5th ed USRs i just use move through cover in place of dune strider as they represent the same ability. as well as the fact everything in 5th has fixed movement distances based on unit types. all infantry move 6" can run a d6" and charge 6" so the extra 3" of movement is ignored/replaced.

As for using knights they work perfectly fine. they are the equivalent of other light superheavies like the macharius-2 structure points. they can walk 12" fire all their guns (at different targets) they can sprint at 18" and only fire one gun, or they can flat out run for 24" but cannot shoot any weapons or charge if they do so.

Also all imperial superheavies count as having an onboard tech marine that can repair damage (not structure) on a 5+

I suggest the original imperial armor volume 1 (first edition) superheavy damage table as it was made for using superheavies in normal games of 40K before apocalypse or D weapons were a thing. it makes them center piece models, but not game breakingly over powered especially with the original weapons profiles( IE turbo laser destructors were just las cannon profile S9 AP2 but small blast instead of a single shot with a 60" range)

Alright, I can get behind that! Dunestrider doesn't seem so bad imo, it's just more or less a stopgap between jump packs and bikes, stopping right in the middle. still, I can see why it would be annoying to play with.

thanks for the advice! I may try to get people to play it after the HH league

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
That is very good to know! I did love playing my admec in 7th ed, but I do worry it may be a bit much to bring a full on army with knights, skitarii and cults against other and older codexes.

Without using formations and the like the skitarii weren't too out of order (compared to some of the monsters of later oldhammer editions such as taudar). It was really stuff like the 'War Convocation' that pushed them well over the edge.

When playing with pre-mid 4th books against newer books (anything prior to the 4e chaos and dark angel books) you may want to consider free grenades and similar to even the table. There were official releases for bringing things like transports and storm shields, etc, up to 5th edition levels.

Knights were mainly problematic due to d strength weapons and their own self destruct table. Swap out d-strength for strength 10 and similarly adjust the stomp table if you don't want arbitrary unit deletion.

---------

If you plan on playing 5e rules with minimal adjustments then split would allocation between upgraded, non-upgraded, and character groups (i.e. if the squad contains a flamer, meltagun, and power sword then that is one group of three for wound allocation, not three groups of one). Though it was rarely a serious issue outside of ork nobz and grey knight paladins.

Yeah that is one of the things we did as well as later editions gave standard grenades for free, so we ignore basic grenade costs (frag/krak, photon etc..) from the older codexes. you still have to pay for the special stuff like melta bombs, haywire/EMP etc..

On the matter of storm shields within the confines of 5th ed core rules a storm shield is a storm shield they all have the same profile. same with POTMS applying the normal BS of the unit it is from, not BS2, as in older editions.

Also formations are flat out gone. we do not allow them because they break the game. as anybody that was around near the tail end of 7th can attest.

Whilst a little more complex, I feel that it would be better to strip the free grenades and make those newer units pay points for them rather than giving the older units free grenades.

Free grenades for everyone is a big part of why cover became irrelevant in assaults.