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.

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
Any objections to this breakdown?

1st Edition - Oldhammer
2nd Edition - Oldhammer
3rd Edition - Midhammer
4th Edition - Midhammer
5th Edition - Midhammer
6th Edition - Midhammer
7th Edition - Midhammer
8th Edition - Newhammer
9th Edition - Newhammer
10th Edition - Newhammer

About right, shows bigger changes in the paradigm behind the ruleset, rather than just modifications of the one of the edition before.

Oldhammer = pre-Covid/pre-TTS

Warhammer = post-Covid/TTS

Cyel wrote:

the-gentleman-ranker wrote:
Any objections to this breakdown?

1st Edition - Oldhammer
2nd Edition - Oldhammer
3rd Edition - Midhammer
4th Edition - Midhammer
5th Edition - Midhammer
6th Edition - Midhammer
7th Edition - Midhammer
8th Edition - Newhammer
9th Edition - Newhammer
10th Edition - Newhammer

About right, shows bigger changes in the paradigm behind the ruleset, rather than just modifications of the one of the edition before.

Although they had the same skeleton, there were some pretty big changes between 3rd and 7th.

I know when i came back to the game in 7th after not really playing since early 4th I had a lot to catch up on! None of them might have been paradigm shifts in themselves, but they do add up.

You could also call it an attitude/ feel change too?
It felt to me like the rules written in 7th were more about layers of rerolls/ special rules, 3rd edition was more about weird army lists that let you field unusual combinations of units in my recollection.

Even with the changes, it was still trying to make the 3rd paradigm work rather than what they should have done and done a complete reset to be more like 6th Fantasy.

I suspect the only concensus will be: "I started playing in edition x. Anything before that is oldhammer"

Probably.

Trying to mark it along edition changes is definitely not the way. Plenty of editions had more dramatic changes mid-edition than at the edition-change. And plenty of factors on how "the game changed" aren't connected to the rulesset at all.

The very reason people use a term like "oldhammer" instead of "5th edition or earlier" is to describe a different / more intanglible change that isn't directly connect to a rulesset-edition. If they wanted to do the latter, they wouldn't need to coin new terminology.

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Trying to mark it along edition changes is definitely not the way. Plenty of editions had more dramatic changes mid-edition than at the edition-change. And plenty of factors on how "the game changed" aren't connected to the rulesset at all.

That is interesting, can you name such changes of both kinds you mention? I've played the game 3rd to 8th and cannot think of any.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Probably.

Trying to mark it along edition changes is definitely not the way. Plenty of editions had more dramatic changes mid-edition than at the edition-change. And plenty of factors on how "the game changed" aren't connected to the rulesset at all.

The very reason people use a term like "oldhammer" instead of "5th edition or earlier" is to describe a different / more intanglible change that isn't directly connect to a rulesset-edition. If they wanted to do the latter, they wouldn't need to coin new terminology.

From my observation, the only reason why people wouldn't refer to 6th and 7th to "oldhammer" would be when it's their starting edition and they are young enough to still be in denial about their age

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Trying to mark it along edition changes is definitely not the way. Plenty of editions had more dramatic changes mid-edition than at the edition-change. And plenty of factors on how "the game changed" aren't connected to the rulesset at all.

That is interesting, can you name such changes of both kinds you mention? I've played the game 3rd to 8th and cannot think of any.

The introduction of new factions.

The addition of large models like Knights, Wraithknights, etc.

The launch of Black Library

GW going "anonymous" after the Mat Ward witchhunt

GW stores changing to stopping/discouraging game play in the stores

GW going "secretive" on leaks with their LoTR arrangement

The introduction of Finecast

The phase-out of Finecast

GW pulling out of doing their own tournaments and supporting competitive play

GW returning to dowing their own tournaments and supporting competitive play

Shifts in their approach to updates and FAQs

The launch of Warhammer Community (or even older, the rise and fall of forums like Dakka, GW's Forum, later Discord, etc..)

The launch of Magnus and the break with the old "static lore"-policy.

Tabletop Simulator-40K becoming a more normal part of 40K

3D-printing becoming a more normal part of 40K

Etc,

Etc..,


All and any of the above are probably more relevant to many people than rules changes between 2nd and 10th or whatever.

I’d add Chapterhouse and the rise of No Model, No Rules to that list. And the change in CEOs.

That’s a valid aproaccch to take, but I think most of use would just round those events to the nearest edition change

Sunny Side Up wrote:

...


All and any of the above are probably more relevant to many people than rules changes between 2nd and 10th or whatever.

Interesting how point of view matters - these corporate/trend changes hardly affected my games at all and I see them as completely separate from game/edition/rules changes which are my basis for separating periods of the game's existence.

It's mostly periods in what the internet talks about.

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

...


All and any of the above are probably more relevant to many people than rules changes between 2nd and 10th or whatever.

Interesting how point of view matters - these corporate/trend changes hardly affected my games at all and I see them as completely separate from game/edition/rules changes which are my basis for separating periods of the game's existence.

It's mostly periods in what the internet talks about.

Indeed. And than they label these periods with terms like "oldhammer" for reference (and for distinction relative to talking about just the pure rules editions) in my experience.

Again, as above, to me the most incisive change feels pre- vs. post-COVID Warhammer, perhaps because it had a period of not playing. Inversely, the shift from 7th to 8th or from 9th to 10th didn't really matter, I think. It was learning some new rules and getting a bunch of cool new minis, but that isn't really substantially different from any random Codex or Miniature release like Black Templars now or whatever. The "gaming experience" didn't change.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Inversely, the shift from 7th to 8th or from 9th to 10th didn't really matter, I think. It was learning some new rules and getting a bunch of cool new minis, but that isn't really substantially different from any random Codex or Miniature release like Black Templars now or whatever. The "gaming experience" didn't change.

I think that is why 6e/7e stands out from 3-5, to a different degree for different players.

You could pile all the 3e-5e books together, pick two out at random, write an all-comers list and then pull out a random rulebook to play them with and at worst you'll need a short supplementary list of USRs.

6e-7e was increasingly apocalypse on steroids along with fundamental differences in the ruleset that went beyond a point or two on the vehicle damage chart or variations on wound allocation.

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Trying to mark it along edition changes is definitely not the way. Plenty of editions had more dramatic changes mid-edition than at the edition-change. And plenty of factors on how "the game changed" aren't connected to the rulesset at all.

That is interesting, can you name such changes of both kinds you mention? I've played the game 3rd to 8th and cannot think of any.

7th edition pre Necron Codex that introduced "Decurion-"detachments was quite different from everything after that. Granted, that was not even a year, but pre-Necron 7th is more like a 6th edition with an update, while Decurion Codizes in 7th went completely off the rails and changed the game more than the actual edition change.
8th edition had an Index phase during its first year and a Psychic awakening phase in its last year.
Horus Heresy 1.0 had some changes because of a 40K FAQ that suddenly allowed only 1 grenade to be thrown (among other things).

These are of the top of my head.

Power creep is normally constant, but there have been a few times it took a mid edition turn. Decurions was a hard line you could see it. But it happened in a different edition as well. And not just a “this codex was written with edition N+1 in mind”

If forget which one is was, but remember people looking forward to a new book on par with the others, and being sadly disappointed. And the next few followed suit.

 Nevelon wrote:
If forget which one is was, but remember people looking forward to a new book on par with the others, and being sadly disappointed. And the next few followed suit.

Pretty much ever edition to some degree or another, except perhaps 4th which was reasonably restrained (though chaos was always going to draw comparisons to 3.5).

6e had the fire that was daemons and taudar followed by the luke-warm marines, nids, and guard. 7e went the other way with craftworlds and decurions within a few months of each other off the back of a streak of weaker books.

And 5e had a few factions waiting their turn at the 3e update party. 5e Crons were top tier, 5e GK were stronger, 5e Dark Eldar were a respectable and full blooded update... and then the sisters got absolutely Cruddaced.

I remember Orks in 7th coming out worse with their new 7th edition codex in 2014 than with their late 4th edition codex from 2008.

I know w40k from 8th ed onwards, but from what codex and reports I have seen, 8th was a dramatic shift in the game.

Something others say happened between 2ed and 3ed too. But I have exactly 0 ways to prove that. GW resets rules, and often anwsers "probelms" they self created an edition later, so it is hard to judge what has roots in what.

The modern stuff does seem to run on a 3-6 years circle, With a reset edition, followed by the "real thing that should have done in the reset edition" edition. Which they gets reset . To a point that now, a lot of people don't want editions to change. With a sprinkle of very w40k specific dread of getting a codex.

Did you mean to write "encapsulates"? I hate to be that person, but the word "episcolates" does not seem to exist in the English language.

More on topic however, for me, especially as an Ork player, I find "oldhammer" to refer to either, 2nd edition - the first edition that made the game even playable in my opinion, 5th edition - where Orks finally got a decent, although not really "good", codex, and 7th edition - where the rules started to coalesce, before they switched over to the newer rules that removed Armor Values on vehicles and started introducing faction <keywords>.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Spoiler:

The introduction of new factions.

The addition of large models like Knights, Wraithknights, etc.

The launch of Black Library

GW going "anonymous" after the Mat Ward witchhunt

GW stores changing to stopping/discouraging game play in the stores

GW going "secretive" on leaks with their LoTR arrangement

The introduction of Finecast

The phase-out of Finecast

GW pulling out of doing their own tournaments and supporting competitive play

GW returning to dowing their own tournaments and supporting competitive play

Shifts in their approach to updates and FAQs

The launch of Warhammer Community (or even older, the rise and fall of forums like Dakka, GW's Forum, later Discord, etc..)

The launch of Magnus and the break with the old "static lore"-policy.

Tabletop Simulator-40K becoming a more normal part of 40K

3D-printing becoming a more normal part of 40K

Etc,

Etc..,


All and any of the above are probably more relevant to many people than rules changes between 2nd and 10th or whatever.

Honestly, next to none of those came even close to changing to how the game is being played. Fethin' Brexit had more impact on my hobby than all of those combined.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Power creep is normally constant, but there have been a few times it took a mid edition turn. Decurions was a hard line you could see it. But it happened in a different edition as well. And not just a “this codex was written with edition N+1 in mind”

If forget which one is was, but remember people looking forward to a new book on par with the others, and being sadly disappointed. And the next few followed suit.

The turning point seems to be when GW is writing a codex while the edition is still fresh and going off assumptions vs writing a codex when the edition is already settled and GW knows what works and what doesn't. Codices written for the second half always tend to be better adapted to how the game actually plays.

Whether GW actually succeeds at writing a good codex is an entirely different topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I remember Orks in 7th coming out worse with their new 7th edition codex in 2014 than with their late 4th edition codex from 2008.

True story. And there was the supplement which shall not be named in that edition as well. A complet clusterfeth of non-functional formations which clearly had not even been play tested once, while at the same time forcing you to buy more models than any sane person would own as a minimum requirement for any of them.
And let's not forget that they even published a PDF which added an ork decurion which was 100% drawbacks with no advantages whatsoever as well

7th edition for orks was so much fun, I literally quit the hobby and tried to sell everything.

 Jidmah wrote:


Honestly, next to none of those came even close to changing to how the game is being played. Fethin' Brexit had more impact on my hobby than all of those combined.

/shrug

Every single one, and probably also Brexit, had more efffect on the games being played than the rules difference between 2nd and 10th. The essence didn't change. Roll some dice, make cool noises, push cool minis across a table. Not much there can change in the rules that will impact the game experience. It's the surrounding technological, social and cultural changes that separate a 2nd edition game from a 10th Ed. game, not what Strength a boltun or how many wounds a Space Marine has.

RT-3ed - ancienthammer
4-7 - old hammer - the time I played
8+ newhammer.
Idk why people say 7 to 8 shift wasn't hard. Well I shift from 7 to 10 and it's different game, like I played 40k and switch to infinity. At least for me. And there is dramatic change in my army. Almost every infantry model now new. At least for me again.

I would say 3rd and 4th edition (and 5th) can't really be separated out. They're all to interlinked with each other to be regarded as separate. 6th was also using the same baseline, but I would say 6th was a turning point (which was started in 5th) for overall tone so you could put a change there.

3rd was the longest running core rule set GW ever used, because it was the basis for everything up to 7th. Each edition just added more to the rules that came before, but the basic building blocks of mechanic resolution didn't change during that time. Svs and AP, cover, invulnerable, S vs T, WS vs WS, etc.

You can take virtually any codex from 3rd to 7th and play it any edition inbetween because the profiles and rules interact with the game the same regardless.

3rd was also artificially longer than any other edition due to the drain caused by LotR, so it was really 2 editions in one trench coat, with updates released through WD and their chapter approved books.

3-5 is very distinct in that there were more refinements to existing rules, and not a lot of additions. But 6th and 7th added a range of new concepts like melee AP etc, which puts it further away.

3-5 was the most stable time in 40k, when you had completely transferrable codexes from 1998 to 2012. That's a 14 year period of just incremental change between editions and codexes. Each new version of a codex/rules was looked at more for the new things it would add, rather than any change it would make to the game.

8th came out in 2017, so the 3rd ed paradigm lasted 20 years, with only one real shift for the last 5.

That 20 year era really set a certain tone for 40k which they've never really gotten back to, in terms of rules and compatibility. 8th and 10th both reset codexes, making previous ones incompatible. That's 2 resets in 6 years.

But you can take 3rd ed codex marines and play it in 7th ed 40k - it may not be very good or competitive, but the mechanics still work.

That's 20 years of compatibility.


It's partly why I can't see 3rd ed as old hammer, because it was still alive in 2017.

1st and 2nd were dead and ancient at that time, but 3rd was living with a new coat of paint and gibbinz.

kabaakaba wrote:
RT-3ed - ancienthammer
4-7 - old hammer - the time I played
8+ newhammer.
Idk why people say 7 to 8 shift wasn't hard. Well I shift from 7 to 10 and it's different game, like I played 40k and switch to infinity. At least for me. And there is dramatic change in my army. Almost every infantry model now new. At least for me again.

Grumpy grognard post incoming...

I think the problem here is that many folks seen to want to calibrate Oldhammer based on when they entered the hobby and feel the need to create a term/label for everything. Middlehammer, Ancienthammer, Newhammer, ugh.

-RT and 2nd Edition are Oldhammer
-3rd is debatable
-10th is current.

Everything else is just past edition's.

Also, what is "Oldhammer" doesn't change just because time has gone by and more people playing today started in more recent editions.

A few weeks ago I was playing a scenario the manager of the FLGS put together. It used a scatter die. My opponent had no idea what it was. And he was no youngster and had been around the block a few times. 7th was the last 40k edition that used them and it wasn’t that long ago…

I had a full on meme “watch me age 30 years in a few seconds” moment. Because it’s been more then a couple years at this point. Not saying 8th is oldhammer, but for some people, it’s the edition from before the one they started after.

I need to lie down now…

We are rapidly approaching a decade since the removal of scatter dice. Locally we have a playerbase that largely consists of people that started in 9th and ask questions about the beforetimes that include 8th pretty regularly.

 Eilif wrote:
Also, what is "Oldhammer" doesn't change just because time has gone by and more people playing today started in more recent editions.

Well, that's how language works though. People who started with 8th or later outnumber people who started with any of the previous seven editions at least 10 to 1. It doesn't matter what you used to call "oldhammer" if that term is used differently by 90% of the people in the hobby today.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Also, what is "Oldhammer" doesn't change just because time has gone by and more people playing today started in more recent editions.

Well, that's how language works though. People who started with 8th or later outnumber people who started with any of the previous seven editions at least 10 to 1. It doesn't matter what you used to call "oldhammer" if that term is used differently by 90% of the people in the hobby today.

Really? Is it so loose a term that 8th edition will someday be "oldhammer"? Come on.

It depends on whether we're talking about a term loosely applied to a thing or an era of time. Era's, generations, etc are much less fungible than random terms tossed about.

I'd lean towards "oldhammer" being an era, especially since editions have specific years and the "oldhammer" term comes from WHFB players. There is debate there, but I don't think most WHFB fans are calling anything post 2000 "oldhammer"

 Orkeosaurus wrote:
According to my research the exact line was actually the change from the 3.5 Chaos codex to the 4e Chaos codex.

And that fact has nothing to do with it ruining my Alpha Legion army, I'm unbiased. There was a shift in attitude from GW throughout that time period but nowhere was it shown as starkly as with those two codices. The previous attitude was much more favorable towards customization, wargear, optional rules and army lists, conversions and even scratch-builds, ongoing campaigns, and building "fluffy" armies. The later attitude was much more about tournament lists, building models as instructed, using GW's special characters, and playing balanced symmetrical missions in isolated games.

There's still a tension between those two philosophies to this day but there was a definite pivot to favoring the latter in the middle of 4e.

Is this just a long-winded way of saying "after Andy Chambers left"?