Do you regularly play a previous edition of 40K?

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**

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.

As others have noted-"counts as" works just fine in most cases with only a very few models not having an equal in previous editions. and honestly as catherine has pointed out, other than specific primaris marine units, pretty much every other army out there has access to nearly every model in their collections between 3rd-7th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
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?

Considering i am playing this game to play in the 40K universe, that would be a YES

If i wanted to play in the MTG universe or starwars or warmachine etc... i will play those other game systems. The in universe lore is what keeps me playing the game and enjoying the battles, more than just winning a war game with miniatures.

Additionally between 3rd-7th there were how many different armies including forge world originals?
.various flavors of marines/imperial guard
.tau
.eldar
.dark eldar
.orks
.tyranids
.GSC
.demon hunters
.witch hunters
.knights
.necrons
.mechanicus

How many factions do you think you need in 40K to make it any more diverse?

**Mezmorki**

I'll just note that for people going back to playing 5th, since you've already taken the plunge to play "old hammer" you might as well house rule in a fix for the #1 irritant of 5th edition: wound allocation.

The simplest fix is to just change it so that would allocation works across the whole unit and isn't split up by having different models have different gear getting allocated wounds differently. Instead as the defender, assign a wound a to a model. Once wounded and assuming it has multiple wounds, then the next unsaved wound on the unit has to be applied against the already wounded model. Solves the problem easily and makes things run faster too.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Jidmah wrote:
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.

We actually have players who joined in 8th in our group. So far, no problems, in fact, once introduced to it, one of them became a relatively driving factor in keeping 5e games happening.

If you're playing anything but Space Marines, your list of things that are new since 5th is like less than 5 units, usually only 1 or 2 kits. The only real issue is things that still have models, but the models are now way bigger [Oblitz, Bloodthirsty, etc.], which requires finding the old model or kitbashing one in the correct scale.

**Jarms48**

I haven't had the chance yet but I'd like to go back to 5th, maybe with some simplifications from 8th/9th.

I'd love the chance to play my 5th edition Guard codex again. I really want someone to let me combine the doctrine and equipment abilities of 4th edition Guard with the 5th edition Guard.

**H.B.M.C.**

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.

Funny. That's what GW does each time they release a new Codex. More so, in fact, with 9th thanks to the utterly inane weapon option rules.

**Not Online!!!**

solkan wrote:
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.

Otoh you gain a whole lot of chaos models by going back. As you do with eldar corsairs.

**A.T.**

Mezmorki wrote:
The simplest fix is to just change it so that would allocation works across the whole unit and isn't split up by having different models have different gear getting allocated wounds differently.

Depending on how much players want to deviate from the original you can also retain the original system with two changes -
1) only four target 'groups' in a unit - base gear, upgraded gear, individual characters, and 'hanger-ons' like cenobyte servitors.
2) wounded models in a group take any additional wounds first (excluding characters who are allocated as the player desires).

It simplifies the old rules, still allowing for some would allocation shenanigans and overkill wounds splling onto important models but getting rid of the more abusive edge-cases. As odd as the 5e system was in places it did give the defender something to do beyond rolling dice and picking up models, and also meant that large unit sizes had additional offensive and defensive benefits.

**Insectum7**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.
Funny. That's what GW does each time they release a new Codex. More so, in fact, with 9th thanks to the utterly inane weapon option rules.

Hahaha. Truth.

**Blackie**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

If you're playing anything but Space Marines, your list of things that are new since 5th is like less than 5 units, usually only 1 or 2 kits. The only real issue is things that still have models, but the models are now way bigger [Oblitz, Bloodthirsty, etc.], which requires finding the old model or kitbashing one in the correct scale.

Nah, older editions can definitely be played with bigger models or proxies, I've done it several times. There was no aura back then and the difference between "correct size" and "wrong size" wasn't really significant. 32mm or 25mm for example doesn't change anything. Only things that screw things up are very huge models like new ghaz.

And it's perfectly fine to use primaris, both infantries and vehicles, as count as for firstborn marines.

**Jidmah**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
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.
Funny. That's what GW does each time they release a new Codex. More so, in fact, with 9th thanks to the utterly inane weapon option rules.

Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
In contrast, going back to anything but 8th invalidates everything in my DG army but bolter and plasma plague marines, rhinos, predators and landraiders.

But yeah, I got the message last time. Dakkas "40K General" main purpose has become for grognards to blindly hate on GW and being a dick to people who enjoy any hobby even a tiny bit, and not for finding actual solutions to problems. Everyone saying otherwise is just a dumb sheep.

It's no surprise that there exactly zero suggestions on how to solve the issue except "I don't give a feth about other people, I want to play MY way, no compromises."

**Not Online!!!**

aehm jid...
Count As was brought up?

and for the record insisting on 9th or 8th just as much excludes whole factions.

**Insectum7**

Jidmah wrote:
it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.

My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything.

**Jidmah**

Insectum7 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.

My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything.

Primaris marines have been released four years ago, there are a lot of players who own no trueborn outside of a few exceptions like terminators, devs or chapter-specific units. And due to the surge of popularity during 8th, in many clubs players who started in the last four years outnumber the people who played during 5th.

They have stopped being a new thing quite some time ago, and aren't a rare thing by a long shot.

Also, once again, it's not comparable. A 5th edition marines army can be played in 9th out of the box. The other direction doesn't work nearly as smooth. And "counts-as" doesn't work for various reasons, among them unit size and wargear loadout.

**The_Real_Chris**

Can anyone remember where the rules to simplify 2nd close combat were posted? Chap worked out a system using less dice that was faster with mathematically the same outcomes.

**Gnarlly**

For my occasional/rare games of 40k these days, I have been focusing on 4th edition rules with a couple tweaks: no defensive (holofield) upgrades for Eldar grav tanks, and Rending operating on a 6 to wound, not a 6 to hit. While I have a lot of nostalgia for 2nd edition, I prefer the rules streamlining that started with 3rd edition and was improved upon for 4th edition (including some of the more controversial rules like Target Priority and abstract terrain). 5th edition's "true line of sight" and wound allocation system were steps back in my opinion, but otherwise I'd be happy playing 5th as well over the current 9th edition ruleset.

**Strg Alt**

Insectum7 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.

My man. . . The reason for primaris existing is to get players to rebuy everything.

Correct.

And it wasn't a big surprise to me that they succeeded in finding enough gullible people to do just that.

**Jidmah**

ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".

Do you people even realize how far removed from reality you are?

**Karol**

Well not everyone buys old models because they have bad rules. The surge in recasts of venguard vets and attack bikes we had at the start of 9th, and the sudden need for a chaplain dread in 8th or dual volkite dreads now shows clearly that new people pick old stuff, because they are good or better too. Plus the older models are a lot cheaper then the new stuff. If someone wants to run 10 blade guard they need to buy 3 boxs or get their hands on indomitus, which is not obvious here. 20 Venguard vets on the other hand cost less, you can get them next week and don't have to wait for the next month GW shipment from UK, which may be 2-3 weeks late and missing the models you want.

I know that a lot people bought the BA tactical just for the parts that were in the box too, so they could clone their own stuff.

On the other hand it is true that in a few years, specially if GW nerfs the classic marine stuff, there aren't going to be many non veterans, or non GK players, having an army without primaris.

**Jidmah**

Most new player just buy whatever box set is currently available, get the start collecting, combat patrol or Christmas megaforces or buy hachette magazines. None of those have any trueborn.

**Insectum7**

Jidmah wrote:
ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".

If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve.

Edit: The word is "suckers"

**Galas**

Insectum7 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve.

Edit: The word is "suckers"

I know people that has 2-4 full 2000+ point marine armies painted in different paint schemes, from different chapters. All of them firstborn. Stop with this moral highhorse crap with people that likes primaris. You don't see how pitty you all look? Complaint about GW and their decisions all you want, but can't you all just stop gaking in other people plates just because you don't enjoy their choices?

We are all grow men and women paying absurds amounts of money for miniature plastic pieces FFS

**H.B.M.C.**

Jidmah wrote:
Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.

"Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument.

The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army.

**Jidmah**

Insectum7 wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
ITT: People buying most recent models from discounted box sets when starting out instead of full price old models with gakky rules are "gullible".
If you just repurchased a marine army even though you already had a perfectly functional army, yeah. "Gulllible" isn't quite the word, but it'll serve.

Edit: The word is "suckers"

I wax *exclusively* talking about players starting over the last four years. Stop moving goalposts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
"Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument.

The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army.

So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?

**AnomanderRake**

Jidmah wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Funny indeed. Since I didn't raid bit stores to min/max my units I didn't have to replace or retire a single one of my 49 plague marine models. And even if I did, it wouldn't even by in the same ball park as telling a pure primaris player to rebuy everything.
"Don't care. Got mine!" isn't a great argument.

The book invalidated a bunch of my Death Guard army.

So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?

Or maybe that it's the exact same problem and communities should be trying to find the middle ground where the fewest people need to go buy new stuff rather than saying "we're playing current tournament-standard rules, and if you don't like it you can feth off."

**aphyon**

Indeed rake

Had a group come in a couple weeks back and when one of them asked if they could play their "lost and the damned" army in our 5th ed games, needless to say they were pleased with our way of playing.

**Not Online!!!**

aphyon wrote:
Indeed rake

Had a group come in a couple weeks back and when one of them asked if they could play their "lost and the damned" army in our 5th ed games, needless to say they were pleased with our way of playing.

Which version did he use?

the campaign one?

**aphyon**

Not sure about his list yet, they have not been back in with the holidays and such.

Not to mention many of the players are military given how many bases are nearby, so depending on if they can get the weekend free varies who can come in and when.

**H.B.M.C.**

Jidmah wrote:
So you are saying it's bad if you have to buy new stuff because rules are changed by GW, but it's fine if others have to buy new stuff because YOU changed the rules?

Given I never said anything even remotely similar to the above, my answer to your question would be "No".

I really am perplexed at your immediate attempt at a strawman attack. I never said anything about me changing the rules. What the feth are you on about???

**Jidmah**

Then maybe you should read threads before responding to them.

Hint: It's about how to convince players having existing armies with no rules in older editions to play older editions. You essentially barged in claimed that "feth them, they should buy new models" is a valid solution to the problem.

**Blackie**

It depends on the models.

Primaris marines can definitely be used in older editions of 40k. If anything I remember players converting their tacs in order to get "true scale marines" back then

.

Proxies and conversions have always been a thing.