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.

 Tyran wrote:
Tyranids only have 2 good codexes. 4th edition codex, which has issues under 5th Ed rules.

And the 9th edition codex.

The 3rd ed codex did have some silly fun things in it like biomorphs for ripper swarms, lost a land raider in early 4th to the 3rd ed ripper swarms with rending claws.

Overall the 4th ed codex is the preferred codex and it does not struggle under 5th ed rules. we know because we use it regularly.
You can also reverse import all the new bugs from 5th-7th back under the 4th ed codex set and it works just fine.

2nd Ed was fun.

I never got to experience the xenomorph nids, but i have seen the minis in real life.

 auticus wrote:
It would however alleviate standing around for 45 minutes doing nothing but removing models, which for some of us is a massive negative play experience.

I am not really sure if AA would solve this problem with GW games
it is not like that they tried to solve the downtime problem in the past by giving the opponent something to do, and each time it was made worse

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Oh to bust out the 3rd edition Nids now that I actually know how wargaming works...

3rd Ed 'Nids weren't all that great. 'Shoot the Good Big Ones' was a massive handicap.

4th helped with the rule of needing an LD test to shoot something that wasn't the closest. I know many people hated that rule but I think it was one of the best ways to make LD matter.

 aphyon wrote:
Overall the 4th ed codex is the preferred codex and it does not struggle under 5th ed rules. we know because we use it regularly.
You can also reverse import all the new bugs from 5th-7th back under the 4th ed codex set and it works just fine.

To be more precise, it struggles with parking lot lists in a competitive setting. Not a lot the 4th Ed codex can do vs an IG list made of dozens of tanks with plenty of plasma and large blast templates.

The 4th Ed codex was designed for an edition in which a glancing hit could still destroy a tank and a pen had a 50% chance of doing the same.

Importing newer units kinda helps because Hive Guard, but the Tyrannofexes and harpies didn't get good until 9th edition (although I admit mixing Harpy rules with 4th ed venom cannons sounds interesting).

There are further issues that 4th also lacks access to some USRs that were introduced in 5th like the thematically appropriate poison. Also no idea how haywire weapons are supposed to work in 5th.

Like sure mixing 3th-7th Ed codexes with 5th BRB does kinda work, but only at the casual thematic level. The moment players start abusing all the nonsense you can find in the upper end of those books, things break fast.

Huh, sounds a lot like 9th. Play casually or play broken/FOTM.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still think the AA/IGOUGO debate is a sideshow that distracts us from the real issues.

Switching GW's games to AA wouldn't suddenly fix their problems, and I don't necessarily agree that it would make them better games either. The problems with GW's games are far deeper and more all-encompassing than simply the turn structure.

Turn structure is a HUGE part of it. Even in 4th, lethality was still starting to get stupid. People just have their rose tinted glasses on because it wasn't at the level it is now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Huh, sounds a lot like 9th. Play casually or play broken/FOTM.

It does, hence the point that 40k has always been broken.

The only saving grace of 9th is that whatever is broken tends to rotate every 6 months, while in 3th-7th you were lucky to get a FAQ.

Well that and that it is far easier to find 9th edition games.

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Huh, sounds a lot like 9th. Play casually or play broken/FOTM.

It does, hence the point that 40k has always been broken.

The only saving grace of 9th is that whatever is broken tends to rotate every 6 months, while in 3th-7th you were lucky to get a FAQ.

Well, that's either a saving grace or a horrible, fast-growing bloat monster that sucks your money down way faster, is harder to learn-by-doing, and more difficult to come to a casual balance with for people who don't keep on top of every little change.

Whatever the problem of 3rd-7th, at least if you played casually, the group could come to a rules understanding that wasn't upended a month later.

"Easier to find 9th edition games" is probably the real reason.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Well, that's either a saving grace or a horrible, fast-growing bloat monster that sucks your money down way faster,

To be honest I kinda like that I actually have a reason to spend money.

5th to 7th Tyranid releases sucked because the Codexes never really gave you a reason to take your money. New models? their rules sucked. It was great for the wallet that you only had to spend on a very limited selection of decent units, but it pretty much killed the enthusiasm.

9th? the external balance may be broken, but internally the codex really gives you reason to buy 95% of the models because almost all of them do something interesting or cool. I mean, even pyrovores are cool now.

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It would however alleviate standing around for 45 minutes doing nothing but removing models, which for some of us is a massive negative play experience.

I am not really sure if AA would solve this problem with GW games
it is not like that they tried to solve the downtime problem in the past by giving the opponent something to do, and each time it was made worse

I wrote an AA system for both 40k and Fantasy / AOS that we used in campaigns for several seasons. For that experience, it did solve the downtime issue immensely. It was also one of the only houseruled parts of my campaign system that had more positive comments than negative, which is saying something considering I had people wanting to fight in the parking lot (literally) for things like allowing Sudden Death victory conditions (which were part of AOS ruleset just not part of matched play) and for playing warhammer world scenarios (because they were not part of matched play).

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Well, that's either a saving grace or a horrible, fast-growing bloat monster that sucks your money down way faster,

To be honest I kinda like that I actually have a reason to spend money.

5th to 7th Tyranid releases sucked because the Codexes never really gave you a reason to take your money. New models? their rules sucked. It was great for the wallet that you only had to spend on a very limited selection of decent units, but it pretty much killed the enthusiasm.

9th? the external balance may be broken, but internally the codex really gives you reason to buy 95% of the models because almost all of them do something interesting or cool. I mean, even pyrovores are cool now.

I guess?

My experience has been that the Sisters dex convinced me to not play Sisters (the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all). I haven't sold them but I also haven't unpacked them since moving in January.

The Aeldari codex made me sell my Eldar, because, again, the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all ("grav tanks? You idiot, those aren't an aspect. Stop playing Eldar wrong!" - GW)

Daemons and Guard haven't even been released yet - heck, if Guard don't come before October we'll have the longest we have ever seen without an IG codex, even from 7th to 3rd period (5 years).

Daemons have gotten nothing. In PA they got a stratagem to upgrade a regular Daemon unit you probably already owned (the Exalted thing). Slaanesh got a lot of stuff for AoS that I bought, but that hardly counts for 40k.

Again, YMMV.

That is fair, YMMV.

 auticus wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It would however alleviate standing around for 45 minutes doing nothing but removing models, which for some of us is a massive negative play experience.

I am not really sure if AA would solve this problem with GW games
it is not like that they tried to solve the downtime problem in the past by giving the opponent something to do, and each time it was made worse

I wrote an AA system for both 40k and Fantasy / AOS that we used in campaigns for several seasons. For that experience, it did solve the downtime issue immensely.

It totally agree that if someone who knows what he is doing, could solve the downtime issue, I am just not sure that GW can do it, no matter what system they are using

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 auticus wrote:
It would however alleviate standing around for 45 minutes doing nothing but removing models, which for some of us is a massive negative play experience.

I am not really sure if AA would solve this problem with GW games
it is not like that they tried to solve the downtime problem in the past by giving the opponent something to do, and each time it was made worse

I wrote an AA system for both 40k and Fantasy / AOS that we used in campaigns for several seasons. For that experience, it did solve the downtime issue immensely.

It totally agree that if someone who knows what he is doing, could solve the downtime issue, I am just not sure that GW can do it, no matter what system they are using

This line of thought boggles my mind. GW, as a company, has used plenty of good AA systems. Just because the main Warhammer paradigm for Fantasy and 40k has not used those for decades doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to.

Titanicus uses straight AA varied by squadroning engines for combined activations.
Middle-Earth uses phased AA that can be altered with heroic actions.
Kill Team uses straight AA varied by group activation values.
Apocalypse uses straight AA of variable detachments.
Many versions of Epic used risk-pushing AA of sustained initiative, time-ordered secret orders etc.
And so on.

GW has used solid, working AA systems for years on end. 40k is easy to shift into that as well, if there is a will to do so within the 40k studio at some point.

Problem, is, all the designers that made the good games do not work for GW any more
Yeah, of the people who made Titanicus, Epic and Middle Earth would have the freedom to change 40k into a better game, they for sure could
but they are not there any more and if those people who are there now can do same, well why haven't they done it by now?

 kodos wrote:
Problem, is, all the designers that made the good games do not work for GW any more
Yeah, of the people who made Titanicus, Epic and Middle Earth would have the freedom to change 40k into a better game, they for sure could
but they are not there any more and if those people who are there now can do same, well why haven't they done it by now?

Current Titanicus is the best GAME they've ever made. It is totally in their power to fix 40k, it's just not feasible(in their mindset).

Racerguy180 wrote:
Current Titanicus is the best GAME they've ever made.

Yeah and the guy who made it left a GW a while ago

How much does an avarge titanicus army cost? Is it a lot cheaper then w40k?

 Tyran wrote:
That is fair, YMMV.

So we're basically at "9th is no better than what came before, except it is easier to find a game of it."

Which is something I would agree with.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
That is fair, YMMV.

So we're basically at "9th is no better than what came before, except it is easier to find a game of it."

Which is something I would agree with.

Yep. The "its easier to find a game of the current edition" is what sticks a lot of people to GW games, and is why GW has no incentive to make good rules.

Also +1 to the Titanicus ruleset. If they put in tanks and infantry and made a proper EPIC I'd buy in 100%.

Karol wrote:How much does an avarge titanicus army cost? Is it a lot cheaper then w40k?

It is much cheaper, being a skirmish game with usually only 4-7 models per side. 125 euros for the starter set gives you rules, game mechanical gizmos and about 1200 points of models (most games being between 1250-1750 points). Official GW terrain can get costly, but one can make a great natural battlefield with cliffs, jungles and such for pocket money and some DIY spirit.

auticus wrote:
Also +1 to the Titanicus ruleset. If they put in tanks and infantry and made a proper EPIC I'd buy in 100%.

Don't wait for that, Titanicus is a game about titans as the rock stars of war and their resource management. It is great at that. Putting combined arms in only weakens the mechanical core. However, Titanicus and Aeronautica models are great for Epic (rules freely available on web) with tanks and infantry available from third party producers and printers.

That is really nice. Anything under 500$ for a GW game is fair, if the rule set is good and fun to play.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Don't wait for that, Titanicus is a game about titans as the rock stars of war and their resource management. It is great at that. Putting combined arms in only weakens the mechanical core. However, Titanicus and Aeronautica models are great for Epic (rules freely available on web) with tanks and infantry available from third party producers and printers.

AT should stay a battleship game. I've yet to dip into netepic but I loved the original and really just like the small scale stuff and large formations of troops.

Also no idea how haywire weapons are supposed to work in 5th.

Same as they always did, hit on BS, glance on a 2-5, pen on a 6+ making them incredibly efficient as you are basically guaranteed to do something if you hit (and they fail any applicable cover saves)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Well, that's either a saving grace or a horrible, fast-growing bloat monster that sucks your money down way faster,

To be honest I kinda like that I actually have a reason to spend money.

5th to 7th Tyranid releases sucked because the Codexes never really gave you a reason to take your money. New models? their rules sucked. It was great for the wallet that you only had to spend on a very limited selection of decent units, but it pretty much killed the enthusiasm.

9th? the external balance may be broken, but internally the codex really gives you reason to buy 95% of the models because almost all of them do something interesting or cool. I mean, even pyrovores are cool now.

I guess?

My experience has been that the Sisters dex convinced me to not play Sisters (the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all). I haven't sold them but I also haven't unpacked them since moving in January.

The Aeldari codex made me sell my Eldar, because, again, the Crusade system didn't support my army's lore at all ("grav tanks? You idiot, those aren't an aspect. Stop playing Eldar wrong!" - GW)

Daemons and Guard haven't even been released yet - heck, if Guard don't come before October we'll have the longest we have ever seen without an IG codex, even from 7th to 3rd period (5 years).

Daemons have gotten nothing. In PA they got a stratagem to upgrade a regular Daemon unit you probably already owned (the Exalted thing). Slaanesh got a lot of stuff for AoS that I bought, but that hardly counts for 40k.

Again, YMMV.

Yeah i made that mistake. getting pissed at GW in the heat of the moment and selling an army. i still miss my old ravenwing, but i will never rebuild it in full scale. epic however is possible.

 Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
In 40k, a brand new player has reasonable odds of winning a game against a regular LGS player once they learn the core rules

[x] doubt

That was me when I started playing again in 9th. Of course I was playing other wargames too. I hadn't played 40k since 4th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I wrote an AA system for both 40k and Fantasy / AOS that we used in campaigns for several seasons. For that experience, it did solve the downtime issue immensely. It was also one of the only houseruled parts of my campaign system that had more positive comments than negative, which is saying something considering I had people wanting to fight in the parking lot (literally) for things like allowing Sudden Death victory conditions (which were part of AOS ruleset just not part of matched play) and for playing warhammer world scenarios (because they were not part of matched play).

Somehow I can't imagine you're representing that story fairly.

Don't wait for that, Titanicus is a game about titans as the rock stars of war and their resource management. It is great at that. Putting combined arms in only weakens the mechanical core. However, Titanicus and Aeronautica models are great for Epic (rules freely available on web) with tanks and infantry available from third party producers and printers.

What you say has merit, but getting people to deviate from "official" rules is difficult and I dont have the steam in me anymore to try to pursue that.

 auticus wrote:

Don't wait for that, Titanicus is a game about titans as the rock stars of war and their resource management. It is great at that. Putting combined arms in only weakens the mechanical core. However, Titanicus and Aeronautica models are great for Epic (rules freely available on web) with tanks and infantry available from third party producers and printers.

What you say has merit, but getting people to deviate from "official" rules is difficult and I dont have the steam in me anymore to try to pursue that.

It's one thing to do homemade scenarios like 2000 points of Marines vs 6000 points of Tyranids. It's another thing to have to adjust points or entire armies because GW can't bother to do things correctly.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
In 40k, a brand new player has reasonable odds of winning a game against a regular LGS player once they learn the core rules

[x] doubt

That was me when I started playing again in 9th. Of course I was playing other wargames too. I hadn't played 40k since 4th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I wrote an AA system for both 40k and Fantasy / AOS that we used in campaigns for several seasons. For that experience, it did solve the downtime issue immensely. It was also one of the only houseruled parts of my campaign system that had more positive comments than negative, which is saying something considering I had people wanting to fight in the parking lot (literally) for things like allowing Sudden Death victory conditions (which were part of AOS ruleset just not part of matched play) and for playing warhammer world scenarios (because they were not part of matched play).

Somehow I can't imagine you're representing that story fairly.

Precedent would suggest you are correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Well, that's either a saving grace or a horrible, fast-growing bloat monster that sucks your money down way faster,

To be honest I kinda like that I actually have a reason to spend money.

5th to 7th Tyranid releases sucked because the Codexes never really gave you a reason to take your money. New models? their rules sucked. It was great for the wallet that you only had to spend on a very limited selection of decent units, but it pretty much killed the enthusiasm.

9th? the external balance may be broken, but internally the codex really gives you reason to buy 95% of the models because almost all of them do something interesting or cool. I mean, even pyrovores are cool now.

Depends on the book. Half the Sisters, Necrons, and 3/4ths of the marine books at any given time are paperweights.

I'm still waiting to see the mythical AA rules that work well.

off topic post clean up.