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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

It's not bad, but it's awkward in balance due to it's high asymmetry that interacts with different factions in different ways. The on-board presence is by unit, so like I get 2 squads of troopers and a CHQ, but they get 2 squads of CSM and a Lord, which is like four times as many points or more. On the flip side, if I deploy first, I screen out everything with my 20 guys so I have basically a full 4 feet between them and me and I get to blow people away with my Basilisks and Leman Russes, but if I go second I have essentially no space and everything is both fragile and backed up against the line.

Ahh, just the two IG squads, sure. . . . Well I'm gonna take the opportunity to toot 4th editions horn again and say that the 4th ed IG codex held IG Platoons as a single troops choice, and were explicitly deployed as a single entity for deployment purposes. So using the 4th era codex the "Two Troops and an HQ" could actually be:

We actually had a discussion about that at the time. The 5th IG codex also specifies that a Platoon is a single troops choice as is deployed together. However, there's a note on the mission page that explicitly calls out troop slots with multiple units in them and says that all the units are counted as separate for all respect, and since I was going first and setting up to zone my Tyranid opponent all the way into his back 6", we'd throw him the bone and I'd deploy two squads and a CCS.

All things considered, I have a preference for 5th. Moar tanks!

No, every edition prior to eight is inferior to it and ninth is better than eight.

During 8th I had a few 3rd and 5th editions games. 8th was bad for so long (I got my first codex a year and a half after the edition's release and I played 3 armies) that I actually managed to find some nostalgic players. Now 9th is great and I don't have the need to play oldhammer.

3rd and 5th are still great games though.

Well, in our gaming group previous editions are not played at all.

PenitentJake wrote:
I don't play old editions, but I use pieces of them that are compatible with 9th.

I still use things like Planet Strike missions, Theatres of War, and especially Streets of Death from Urban Conquest.

This. Especially narrative resources that aren't too closely connected to their respective editions are an invaluable treasure for creating your own campaigns.

Anyways, for the poll itself I would have voted "No", but it seems to be lacking that option.

9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.

 Jidmah wrote:

Anyways, for the poll itself I would have voted "No", but it seems to be lacking that option

The poll question is different to the thread title

I still don't see a reason why you don't want to have "don't play old editions" as part of your poll.
As a rule of thumb, everyone clicking your thread should have at least one option they can vote.

But doesn't really matter now, adding it late would warp the results anyways.

LOL i noticed that 6th edition has zero votes...as it should be

6th was basically just like 8th, aka a beta version of the real game (edition) that was about to the released.

Yep, 3rd

Currently playing no edition of 40k, but past attempts to kick off with the newer editions have all fallen flat. 5e or a revised 5e probably has the best chance of drawing the old crowd back in locally after 6e-7e mostly pushed them off.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We actually had a discussion about that at the time. The 5th IG codex also specifies that a Platoon is a single troops choice as is deployed together. However, there's a note on the mission page that explicitly calls out troop slots with multiple units in them and says that all the units are counted as separate for all respect

I remember it was explicitly two units as a single infantry squad with its dedicated transport counted as both troops choices in the example, despite being the same FoC selection. The problems came when you had an HQ tank and tank escorts picking off the reserves one at a time as they arrived, or a biker captain and two squads of troop bikes screaming up the table with nothing to shoot back.

 Jidmah wrote:

9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.

Yes, this is often an issue. And sometimes a force doesn't even exist....:(

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

9th is just the best edition so far. While 5th was almost as good and flawed as 9th, 9th wins out by default since we have a lot of players who started after 5th. They have no interest in going to back to an edition where much of the things they have always used aren't there.

Yes, this is often an issue. And sometimes a force doesn't even exist....:(

We play 5th with house rules that includes using any codex you like from 3rd-7th within the framework of the 5th ed core rules/USRs. aside from the expanded units for necrons, sisters or custodes i cannot think of any faction that isn't represented in our games. i or someone in our group currently own physical copies of the most liked codexes for every faction save dark eldar, black templar(sort of-still need to get the 4th ed codex, i have armageddon ) and GSC.

How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.

Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.

"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

 Jidmah wrote:
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

"Nice true-scale marines".
Vehicles on the other hand...

 aphyon wrote:

Your idea of diverse and mine are different things. posting tournament win/loss rates are completely meaningless to me and are actually the opposite of what i look for in 40K.

My idea of diverse is armies that fit the in universe lore and still function on the table while also being fun to play. winning or loosing is secondary to that.

In our 5th ed group we have a bit of everything cadian guard, DKOK, iron hands, iron warriors, khorne themed chaos forces, salamanders, tau, admech, demon hunters, various flavors of orks & tyranids etc...

So your definition of diverse is armies that ascribe to rigid guidelines of what exists in the universe?

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

"Nice true-scale marines".
Vehicles on the other hand...

Eh: Repulsor = Land Raider, Repulsor Executioner = Land Raider Achilles, Gladiator = Predator/Sicaran variants, Redemptor = some kind of dreadnought? How big is the base?

 Jidmah wrote:
How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.

Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.

"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?

 Jidmah wrote:
How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.

Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.

"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.

You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?

I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.

You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued

Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.

Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
How do you handle people who almost exclusively own primaris marines? That's pretty much the default for any marines player who started in the last four years.

Especially 8th and its box sets and conquest have brought quite a few new players into the hobby, and many of them own armies which partially or fully haven't existed before.

"Let's go back to an edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" is not very attractive to them.

The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?

Unless you mean "I cannot field my exact collection of models in their original configuration without any changes" for "collection doesn't exist", I don't know what you mean.

Off the top of my head for Chaos, we've lost
- 3rd edition chaos hounds (which can probably be easily used as flesh hounds)
- Ghost Rider
- That one Khorne machine from 2nd edition
- The various mounted options for chaos lords
- If you own a robot model, you probably have to field it as a hellbrute
- If you had a Chaos army before the Chaos Demons codex, you probably need to reorganize your army unless you really adapt to the summoning rules.

Otherwise, not being able to field a unit exactly as you built it is just as likely to be caused by points changes, or errata. And I can certainly remember a few times where a FAQ/errata came out specifying that some popular wargear combination wasn't allowed.

I'm just saying that comparing 3rd or 5th edition Chaos to 9th edition Chaos, even leaving out Knights, you invalidate a lot more models going from 9th to 5th than 5th to 9th.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?

I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.

You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued

Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.

Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?

If you're playing most armies that aren't space marines, your collection is almost entirely usable. Given that everyone in the group I play 5th with has multiple armies, we don't have any problems.

And, in my opinion, the frozen in time unit pool is a positive feature for playing an old edition. There's no release treadmill, which is definitely a plus. And also, for me personally, the fact that it deliberately excludes a lot of units and 'features' that came into the game in 6th like Lords of War, Allies, and Flyers is an upside.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
If you're playing most armies that aren't space marines, your collection is almost entirely usable. Given that everyone in the group I play 5th with has multiple armies, we don't have any problems.

And, in my opinion, the frozen in time unit pool is a positive feature for playing an old edition. There's no release treadmill, which is definitely a plus. And also, for me personally, the fact that it deliberately excludes a lot of units and 'features' that came into the game in 6th like Lords of War, Allies, and Flyers is an upside.

Sorry, but if you don't understand that "everything released in the last ten years is banned" is all-downside for everyone who didn't play in 5th, I don't know what to tell you.

Essentially, you are extremely lucky to be playing in a super-stable group of like-minded players where no one ever stopped playing. For any group with regular fluctuations that continues to recruit people, that approach just doesn't work.

Your approach applied to my group would just result almost half the group rejecting the suggestion of playing 5th and that's all there is to it.

And that's why I asked aphyon specifically how they made it work, because IIRC they had some sort of system in place that allowed armies to be backwards compatible instead of telling newer players to get off their lawn.

I miss 5th, a lot actually. I don't know if it's just the onset of 30 approaching quickly and I want to relive my youth. But I just do not feel 9th at all. I still all have all my books and should try to gauge interest for it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The alternative for me is often to accept that "let's stick to the current edition where your collection doesn't exist and needs to be house-ruled" gets to win. I don't find that old editions need more work than new editions to be made playable or to let people use all their stuff, so it ends up coming down to personal preference. Stratagems or armour facings? Scatter or all the rerolls?

I feel your situation, but it's kind of the edge cases of all edge cases. Exactly zero people I know in person even own armies that do not have current rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
We don't. We were either active at the time and thus have appropriate collections, and those that weren't play with their armies and units that were valid at the time.

You can also just get 5th edition-valid units for your army. Theres not that many GW kits from the time that have been discontinued

Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing.

Our group has continuously gained new players over the years, many people have never played a game of 5th (or even 7th) and without any nostalgia, why would you even try?

Check out my 3rd Ed battle reports. My regular opponent is someone who started at the transition from 6th to 7th and his Tyranid force was almost completely able to be backported. From there he's bought a Chaos force that can go modern OR 3rd as well as an Eldar army from eBay explicitly for 3rd.


If that can happen in my club, it can happen anywhere.


For the record it also applies to 6th WFB where we've been expanding our base of players.

 solkan wrote:
...Unless you mean "I cannot field my exact collection of models in their original configuration without any changes" for "collection doesn't exist", I don't know what you mean...

My interactions with 9th consist largely of getting tabled in two or three turns and then getting told "well, if you bought different models you could have fun," which I think is pretty much the same phenomenon as telling someone else "well, if you want to play oldhammer you have to buy different models or we have to do some homebrewing." My CSM army, in a literal sense, exists. That doesn't mean I can play the game without walking away from the table afterwards thinking "why did we even bother getting the models out, then?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
...Yes, "feth you, buy new models" is a very convincing argument to get people to try an edition they have no interest in playing. ...

And yet it's the only argument that anyone's ever used to try to convince me that 9th is the greatest edition of 40k ever.

Make no mistake, if you bring the "wrong" models in older editions, your time wont be better.

The difference in this edition is, that armies have a lot more choice to avoid taking bad units. Chaos is in dire need of their 9th books.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Make no mistake, if you bring the "wrong" models in older editions, your time wont be better.

The difference in this edition is, that armies have a lot more choice to avoid taking bad units. Chaos is in dire need of their 9th books.

Yeah. That's the point. 9th isn't better than 7th. 9th isn't worse than 7th. 9th has the exact same problems as 7th for the exact same reasons, and I'd rather face down those problems in an environment where we've all thrown off the tyranny of officialdom and I have license to try and fix some of those problems.

You can fix the problems you find now with houserules, I.e. the exact same way you'd be fixing any problems found in previous editions. Unless you're only attending official events like tournaments or campaign weekenders, there is literally nothing stopping you from houseruling.

Had a few games of 3E, it's fun going back and seeing how the old systems work, using my modern models. I want to give every edition a try over time. People have their Takes about specific editions and I would also like to have Takes.

Bigger bases on my orks didn't really affect the 3E games I played. Folks can get real anal with model/base equivalency across editions. I find these issues are quickly solved by not being anal about model/base equivalency across editions

3E is nice cuz I can run my Snakebites/Snaggas with specific rules for Feral Orks, which is basically Orks with a guardsman statline using Ork guns, and they have lobbas with catapult rules. I've outshot Tau with them, it's great.