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.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I mean I am currently. I would just like another tome with it gathered together instead of having to scour the internet for older editions.

It took less than 10 seconds for me to search "Warhammer 40k 4th Edition Rulebook PDF" and get a website that not only had it available but every other rulebook as well. "Scour" is not even remotely an appropriate term.
What you're asking for is for GW to sell you old rules.

okay, if it is 'slightly different' then pick a unit from 8th, 9th or 10th and use it in 4th edition.

You've kind of made my point for me. You want to use your Attack Bikes or non-Primaris Shrike so you want a whole game just to do that to be sold to you when you can do it for free.
However, if you want it to be a "Legacy" game then it has to be a "Legacy" game where units and armies didn't exist otherwise it's not "Legacy" is it? It's just "40k but how I want it".
So good for you, you get to use your Bikes, too bad Necron player you lose 10 units that are a core part of your army, and too bad Custodes player you get one unit added at the very end of 7th Ed.

it obviously doesn't work the way it used to without some heavy homebrewing. part of the reason why this comes up a lot is because people want it. They want to play GSC and eldari in with a HH2 rules without having to go to homebrew. they want to play orks and votann in those legacy systems. that's why they keep bringing it up. HH2 is great if you like power armor, but if you want to play eldari or any other xenos then you're SOL.

The mistake you (and so many others) are making is thinking HH is a Legacy 40k system, it's not. TOW is a reimagining of WHFB and hits a lot of similar beats to the point where people can use their WHFB armies right out of the gate even if the rules are a mix of various editions of WHFB.
You can't do that in HH because it's not 40k. The rules are a mix of various editions of 40k but it's set in a period where 40k armies either don't exist yet or have no place.

Laziness is all this is. You can't be bothered to get a rulebook from the internet, it has to be sold to you.

 Gert wrote:

Laziness is all this is. You can't be bothered to get a rulebook from the internet, it has to be sold to you.

Oh I didn't realize Custodes, Votaan, Knights, GSC etc all had rules for 4th ed that were so easy to find. . .

Gert, have you consider posting without insulting people?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh I didn't realize Custodes, Votaan, Knights, GSC etc all had rules for 4th ed that were so easy to find. . .

Then it isn't "Legacy 40k" is it? You can't have it both ways. The Custodes were locked away prior to the events of 8th Edition. The other factions haven't been added to the game.
So it's not "Legacy 40k", it's "I don't like the current rules and want it to be different 40k".

I really don't understand how you can get so worked up about someone saying they want to play official, current 40k with the models that are basically the face of the franchise.

What is this the Spanish Inquisition?

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Oh I didn't realize Custodes, Votaan, Knights, GSC etc all had rules for 4th ed that were so easy to find. . .

Then it isn't "Legacy 40k" is it? You can't have it both ways. The Custodes were locked away prior to the events of 8th Edition. The other factions haven't been added to the game.
So it's not "Legacy 40k", it's "I don't like the current rules and want it to be different 40k".

Knights and GSC existed.

But perhaps you should go back and see that the poster wrote "Legacy system". They gave examples too. I'm not sure how you missed it.

 Gert wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
I mean I am currently. I would just like another tome with it gathered together instead of having to scour the internet for older editions.

It took less than 10 seconds for me to search "Warhammer 40k 4th Edition Rulebook PDF" and get a website that not only had it available but every other rulebook as well. "Scour" is not even remotely an appropriate term.
What you're asking for is for GW to sell you old rules.

cool, I could too. Now how about the orks, the eldar, the imperial guard, the space marines, the campaighn suppliments ect. ect.

You've kind of made my point for me. You want to use your Attack Bikes or non-Primaris Shrike so you want a whole game just to do that to be sold to you when you can do it for free.
However, if you want it to be a "Legacy" game then it has to be a "Legacy" game where units and armies didn't exist otherwise it's not "Legacy" is it? It's just "40k but how I want it".
So good for you, you get to use your Bikes, too bad Necron player you lose 10 units that are a core part of your army, and too bad Custodes player you get one unit added at the very end of 7th Ed.

okay, and did you stop and think that a legacy 40k could include those necron and custodes units too? that's part of the reason why a 40k legacies style rules could be great. Add things in that didn't appear new, or even things that did show up later like primaris.

The mistake you (and so many others) are making is thinking HH is a Legacy 40k system, it's not. TOW is a reimagining of WHFB and hits a lot of similar beats to the point where people can use their WHFB armies right out of the gate even if the rules are a mix of various editions of WHFB.
You can't do that in HH because it's not 40k. The rules are a mix of various editions of 40k but it's set in a period where 40k armies either don't exist yet or have no place.

Laziness is all this is. You can't be bothered to get a rulebook from the internet, it has to be sold to you.

remember when I said you seemed to be getting pissed off over this legacy 40k stuff?

the mistake you are making is that you're thinking im lazy. HH2 is a good system, and a return to what I and many other people liked, while improving on things from past editions. It is not perfect, but I like it. It is also as close to a modern 7th edition would look like. Why would I not want to see a game setting closer to what I liked in 7th ed? The way I see it, something like this could be fun for people to have as an alternative to 10th. The groundwork is already set up in the HH age of darkness rules.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights and GSC existed.

But perhaps you should go back and see that the poster wrote "Legacy system". They gave examples too. I'm not sure how you missed it.

The example was TOW, which as discussed works because the armies in TOW are largely made up of models and units that don't exist in AoS, which would not be the case for 40k as none of the "core factions" as it has been put, have been removed or radically changed in 40k barring Space Marines.
The core makeup for Orks, Craftworlds, Tyranids, Necrons, Deldar, T'au, and the various other Imperium armies have remained the same albeit with newer models. There are some exceptions in TOW such as Chaos Warriors or Ironbreakers. However, a Leman Russ from 1995 and a Leman Russ from 2008 are the same unit while Freeguild Steelhelms and Empire State Troops are not.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
cool, I could too. Now how about the orks, the eldar, the imperial guard, the space marines, the campaighn suppliments ect. ect.

When I said "all of the rulebooks" I meant all. Again, this is the digital age and there are whole online communities with archives ready to be shared.

okay, and did you stop and think that a legacy 40k could include those necron and custodes units too? that's part of the reason why a 40k legacies style rules could be great. Add things in that didn't appear new, or even things that did show up later like primaris.

Then it isn't a "Legacy" system, it's just the current system with rules that you like better.

HH2 is a good system, and a return to what I and many other people liked, while improving on things from past editions. It is not perfect, but I like it. It is also as close to a modern 7th edition would look like. Why would I not want to see a game setting closer to what I liked in 7th ed? The way I see it, something like this could be fun for people to have as an alternative to 10th. The groundwork is already set up in the HH age of darkness rules.

Again, it's not a "Legacy" system if you get all the models and units you can currently use, plus extra ones that aren't in the game anymore with rules that you enjoy over the current option.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights and GSC existed.

But perhaps you should go back and see that the poster wrote "Legacy system". They gave examples too. I'm not sure how you missed it.

The example was TOW, which as discussed works because the armies in TOW are largely made up of models and units that don't exist in AoS, which would not be the case for 40k as none of the "core factions" as it has been put, have been removed or radically changed in 40k barring Space Marines.
The core makeup for Orks, Craftworlds, Tyranids, Necrons, Deldar, T'au, and the various other Imperium armies have remained the same albeit with newer models. There are some exceptions in TOW such as Chaos Warriors or Ironbreakers. However, a Leman Russ from 1995 and a Leman Russ from 2008 are the same unit while Freeguild Steelhelms and Empire State Troops are not.

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
cool, I could too. Now how about the orks, the eldar, the imperial guard, the space marines, the campaighn suppliments ect. ect.

When I said "all of the rulebooks" I meant all. Again, this is the digital age and there are whole online communities with archives ready to be shared.

okay, and did you stop and think that a legacy 40k could include those necron and custodes units too? that's part of the reason why a 40k legacies style rules could be great. Add things in that didn't appear new, or even things that did show up later like primaris.

Then it isn't a "Legacy" system, it's just the current system with rules that you like better.

HH2 is a good system, and a return to what I and many other people liked, while improving on things from past editions. It is not perfect, but I like it. It is also as close to a modern 7th edition would look like. Why would I not want to see a game setting closer to what I liked in 7th ed? The way I see it, something like this could be fun for people to have as an alternative to 10th. The groundwork is already set up in the HH age of darkness rules.

Again, it's not a "Legacy" system if you get all the models and units you can currently use, plus extra ones that aren't in the game anymore with rules that you enjoy over the current option.

a Legacy Rules system, an alternative to tenth using things like armor value, Old style AP, old style initiative and combat, FOC army building, and old style cover saves while gaining things like the customization of HH2's legion tactics, rites of war, power weapons, reactions ect. HH2, as I said, is an expansion on the 4th-7th system people liked. even if it's not 100% old edition rules, but close enough that it carries on what 7th ed and the others had.

But that won't happen though. What you want is just a different version of main 40k to play alongside 10th and GW will never do that, it would make no sense.

Why would the company market two games that are exactly the same except one gets more stuff which the company already doesn't have the capacity to keep in the range as it is?

It's not like TOW where the rules are a huge difference to AoS while using models that aren't sold in AoS or HH where the rules are similar but still different while using lots of different models to 40k.

This would literally just be 40k.

 Gert wrote:
But that won't happen though. What you want is just a different version of main 40k to play alongside 10th and GW will never do that, it would make no sense.

Why would the company market two games that are exactly the same except one gets more stuff which the company already doesn't have the capacity to keep in the range as it is?

It's not like TOW where the rules are a huge difference to AoS while using models that aren't sold in AoS or HH where the rules are similar but still different while using lots of different models to 40k.

This would literally just be 40k.

yes it would be 40k. 40k that many people would prefer. just as many people wouldn't, sure, just as with AOS.

maybe it wouldn't happen, but there is a market for it.

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights and GSC existed.

But perhaps you should go back and see that the poster wrote "Legacy system". They gave examples too. I'm not sure how you missed it.

The example was TOW . . .

"They want to play GSC and eldari in with a HH2 rules without having to go to homebrew. they want to play orks and votann in those legacy systems."

The examples involved newer armies (GSC, Votann) using a pre 8th style rule set. That was pretty clear.

 Gert wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

Sure, so play older editions where you have the units. We live in the digital age where you can get literally everything online for free.

and, it's not just the models. Like AOS, they completely re-wrote the game to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable to what the old editions where. A remaster of older editions of 40k in the style of HH2 wouldn't be too difficult as long as they learn from past mistakes or take lessons from old game mechanics.

Rogue Trader and 3rd Edition are massively different from each other. Which older edition of 40k should be used as the baseline? Unit stats are still largely the same, USRs have returned in 10th, and the basic fundamentals of the game are unchanged (unlike AoS which moved from a rank/file system to a skirmish system) so the only big difference that isn't units or models is that force org is a thing of the past and that's being discussed elsewhere.

why would you be ticked off about it if it used mostly the same models anyways?

Who said I was ticked off? This comes up a lot when people look at HH and TOW and say "GW needs to do legacy 40k" and then the only justification is that they don't like Primaris. Have Aeldari players suffered as a result of changing editions? Have Necron players?
More to the point what is the selling point of this? "Come play this version of 40k that doesn't have Primaris, or Custodes, or Votann, or GSC, or any unit released after 2017. The rules are slightly different to the ones you have now."

my three armies in 40k are GSC, Custodes, and Necrons— two of these did not exist prior to 7th edition, and Necrons has only gotten cooler units since. the only things Necrons have lost are the old resin characters and the old Lord model (which i just use as an overlord now)

and even if i want to play older editions, i have managed to find, and have a downloaded collection of, every single older edition rulebook. the only issue i would have in playing a game with those rules is finding someone willing to play with me (and that wouldn't be helped by making an entirely new game and rules system)

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gert wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

Sure, so play older editions where you have the units. We live in the digital age where you can get literally everything online for free.

and, it's not just the models. Like AOS, they completely re-wrote the game to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable to what the old editions where. A remaster of older editions of 40k in the style of HH2 wouldn't be too difficult as long as they learn from past mistakes or take lessons from old game mechanics.

Rogue Trader and 3rd Edition are massively different from each other. Which older edition of 40k should be used as the baseline? Unit stats are still largely the same, USRs have returned in 10th, and the basic fundamentals of the game are unchanged (unlike AoS which moved from a rank/file system to a skirmish system) so the only big difference that isn't units or models is that force org is a thing of the past and that's being discussed elsewhere.

why would you be ticked off about it if it used mostly the same models anyways?

Who said I was ticked off? This comes up a lot when people look at HH and TOW and say "GW needs to do legacy 40k" and then the only justification is that they don't like Primaris. Have Aeldari players suffered as a result of changing editions? Have Necron players?
More to the point what is the selling point of this? "Come play this version of 40k that doesn't have Primaris, or Custodes, or Votann, or GSC, or any unit released after 2017. The rules are slightly different to the ones you have now."

my three armies in 40k are GSC, Custodes, and Necrons— two of these did not exist prior to 7th edition, and Necrons has only gotten cooler units since. the only things Necrons have lost are the old resin characters and the old Lord model (which i just use as an overlord now)

and even if i want to play older editions, i have managed to find, and have a downloaded collection of, every single older edition rulebook. the only issue i would have in playing a game with those rules is finding someone willing to play with me (and that wouldn't be helped by making an entirely new game and rules system)

GSC existed in 3e.
It wasn't very good, maybe only semi-official, and definitely lacks all the midern cool stuff, but....

You need to track down a copy of Citadel Journal #27 (I think it's #27, could be wrong without looking it up)

ccs wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gert wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:
Yea, and like it or not those firstborn marines where people's armies. a lot of people's armies. You could say it built the foundation of 40k as we know it.

Sure, so play older editions where you have the units. We live in the digital age where you can get literally everything online for free.

and, it's not just the models. Like AOS, they completely re-wrote the game to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable to what the old editions where. A remaster of older editions of 40k in the style of HH2 wouldn't be too difficult as long as they learn from past mistakes or take lessons from old game mechanics.

Rogue Trader and 3rd Edition are massively different from each other. Which older edition of 40k should be used as the baseline? Unit stats are still largely the same, USRs have returned in 10th, and the basic fundamentals of the game are unchanged (unlike AoS which moved from a rank/file system to a skirmish system) so the only big difference that isn't units or models is that force org is a thing of the past and that's being discussed elsewhere.

why would you be ticked off about it if it used mostly the same models anyways?

Who said I was ticked off? This comes up a lot when people look at HH and TOW and say "GW needs to do legacy 40k" and then the only justification is that they don't like Primaris. Have Aeldari players suffered as a result of changing editions? Have Necron players?
More to the point what is the selling point of this? "Come play this version of 40k that doesn't have Primaris, or Custodes, or Votann, or GSC, or any unit released after 2017. The rules are slightly different to the ones you have now."

my three armies in 40k are GSC, Custodes, and Necrons— two of these did not exist prior to 7th edition, and Necrons has only gotten cooler units since. the only things Necrons have lost are the old resin characters and the old Lord model (which i just use as an overlord now)

and even if i want to play older editions, i have managed to find, and have a downloaded collection of, every single older edition rulebook. the only issue i would have in playing a game with those rules is finding someone willing to play with me (and that wouldn't be helped by making an entirely new game and rules system)

GSC existed in 3e.
It wasn't very good, maybe only semi-official, and definitely lacks all the midern cool stuff, but....

You need to track down a copy of Citadel Journal #27 (I think it's #27, could be wrong without looking it up)

i have PDFs for the citadel journal. i've read that entry. it's neat... but also had superficial similarities to the modern list. would be very difficult to play the models for the modern army as the 3E list (and even harder for the 2E list). sort of like saying i could play a custodes army in RT because of the one model

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Knights and GSC existed.

But perhaps you should go back and see that the poster wrote "Legacy system". They gave examples too. I'm not sure how you missed it.

The example was TOW . . .

"They want to play GSC and eldari in with a HH2 rules without having to go to homebrew. they want to play orks and votann in those legacy systems."

The examples involved newer armies (GSC, Votann) using a pre 8th style rule set. That was pretty clear.

Thank you, it’s nice to see someone listening to me

But yea, this is my dream as foolish as some people may think it is. Honestly I didn’t like HH2 until I gave it a shot, and it really is close to what I wanted in a pre-8th style. Keep those rules as base, add armies for Tyranids, GSC and the other codexes with the same kind of customization and faction rules like the legions or militia have, and while it wouldn’t be HH exactly it would be fun none the less.

Again, probably not going to happen but I would argue why not dream about this 35k edition lol