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:
^Hormagaunts and Termagants were in squad sizes up to 24. Genestealers and Gargoyles were were up to 12.

I thought the gants and gaunts were actually back down to 20 per unit this edition. I'm going off the Index as a I never bought the codex, but I remember realizing that termagants would max out at 120 this edition.

Ahh yes you're right, its been a while since I last played this edition and yeah Gaunts are way back down to 20 per unit this edition!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

There were also a lot more toolbox models back then, even if the kit didn't have all the parts, there were many more "this model does all the things just vary the loadout". This is something we've seen GW chip away at here and there and 10th feels like they've really cut away with a lot.
There's good and bad in that, but I can see why when back then most armies were pretty small; whilst today there are a LOT of choices for each army in what models to take.

I think modern GW is keen on making you buy new kits to open up new tactical opportunities, rather than simple wargear/spell swaps.

There's 100% GW wanting us to buy more kits; but at the same time customers also want more kits. You see a new edition of a codex and everyone is throwing out ideas for either replacements of existing models that are old; or ideas for new models they'd love to see. Some refreshes of old models that were once there and got removed; some FW alternate models and some just fully new ideas or things that other armies can do that they wish their army could do.

So you've got GW wanting to sell stuff and customers wanting to buy and personally I honestly prefer having 5 different models with unique appearances and lore* over having 1 model with 5 different weapon options. Even if you can use magnets to get more out of the model, the unique appearances and more diversity in a collection really makes it stand out more and be more exciting.


*yes GW I'm STILL very salty that you've stopped putting unit by unit pages/duel pages of lore into the modern codex!

2nd ed codexes will always be my favourite entirely for their lore forward approach and unit details.

I also really miss the outboxes and quotes, which added depth without requiring novels. Most of the modern 40k narrative plot hooks and cool bits are drawn entirely from single lines in outboxes from 20 years ago.

The introduction of the ctan star gods was probably the first very visible example of a random mention in an outbox being pulled out and expanded.

Random insane quotes from the nastier side of the imperium - 'why kill the alien? why not?', or 'an open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded', 'foreign travel narrows the mind wonderfully', were amazing flavour enhancers that you just don't see any more.

And so many cool concepts, like the 3 moons of the eldar homeworld referencing the 3 fates/lileath/morai heg/isha, the story of Eldanesh and Ulthanesh, the ORIGINAL story of the War in Heaven.

Looking back, so much of modern 40k was built specifically on Eldar background, nicking stuff to flesh other things out. The war in heaven used to be an actual war between the eldar gods and Khaine with a small role for the Yngir (assumed to be necrons/ctan). Now the war in heaven has nothing to do with the eldar, stolen to puff up the necrons.

On wargear and options?

I dunno if it’s Heresy allowing it, or me being a Sad Old Git wanting to take advantage? But once the Melee set is out for Heresy, my plan is to cobble together a Veteran unit, and then make a bunch of Unit Champions with different loadouts, from Very Fancy to Bare Bones, so I’ve a greater variety to choose from when assembling an army.

I’m also tempted to get sufficient MkVI bods to use up my remaining Heavy and Special Weapons. That’ll give me far more units than I can field - but again, Options.

I couldn’t properly afford that in 2nd Ed, despite owning a Company of Marines. Yes I had unit choices, but their loadouts were what they were. But I could have done so if my first job didn’t pay such a pittance.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On wargear and options?

I dunno if it’s Heresy allowing it, or me being a Sad Old Git wanting to take advantage? But once the Melee set is out for Heresy, my plan is to cobble together a Veteran unit, and then make a bunch of Unit Champions with different loadouts, from Very Fancy to Bare Bones, so I’ve a greater variety to choose from when assembling an army.

I’m also tempted to get sufficient MkVI bods to use up my remaining Heavy and Special Weapons. That’ll give me far more units than I can field - but again, Options.

I couldn’t properly afford that in 2nd Ed, despite owning a Company of Marines. Yes I had unit choices, but their loadouts were what they were. But I could have done so if my first job didn’t pay such a pittance.

I’m trying to think when it got “easy”. 4th? 5th? Probably depends on the specific option you wanted.

Tac squads came with a ML/F, chainsword/BP sarge. You want options? Go search. Special order bits, get metal blisters if you can find them.

Combi weapons were generally kitbashed or sourced off of specific named characters.

3rd still had hybrid metal/plastic heavy weapons. The dev box was only one each of some of them. People fielded a lot of MLs not just becasue they were flexable, but that’s all they had cheep and easy access to.

I picked up the grey hunter box in 3rd because it had the SW upgrade sprue which included a metagun (amoung other things, but that was the big one)

Heavy options opened a lot when we got fully plastic devs. We got more guns then bodies. So you shook one together with a tac box and doubled your firepower.

They started putting all the specials and a build a combi in the tac box. That helped a lot.

The old multipart commander kit was a goldmine,

Plastic sternguard was also a trove a bits to scatter across all the sergeants in your list.

These days I have a flexible shelf deployment for my company, plus a well stocked swap shelf of extra options. Assisted by magnets, but also a lot of full models. It does make it a little harder to tally the points in my collection, but lets me field most combos I would want.

I was talking to a buddy about all the conversion work we had to do to get the model we wanted years back. It was fun but also a bit tiresome.

To be honest, I do like modern kits and modern army design where finding bits and converting models to play a model/unit is no longer necessary.

I remember putting together an All Heavy Plasma Gun Devastator squad. The shoulder mounted ones so it must’ve been during 2nd Ed.

That, from hazy, hazy memory involved plundering the racks at my local GW, and a Mail Order to fill out the rest.

But that was 2nd Ed for you. You didn’t exactly have to sing for your supper, but you did have to work a wee bit harder.

For combi-weapons of course we had the Bitz Service. Which was very welcome, but the shift to plastic killed off. Not to mention paying someone to pick two or three bits with a grand total of maybe £2-£3 would hardly have been c cost efficient, Spesh as if I was ordering 3 of Azrael’s combi-plasma for instance, you’d have the left over bits from the same mould which would just….sit there, presumably.

The 3rd Ed Tactical squad was still fairly basic, and it would be a while before you really got options with it. Whilst stylistically much cooler, the 3rd Ed metal/plastic hybrids Devastators can go die in a bin if you ask me. Getting me to muck about with super glue on plastic with irritating weight distribution. FIE! I say! FIE!

I don’t actually know what Fie means. But FIE!

Fully agree on the PITA of the hybrid devs. I’ve been at this for a long time, and they are definitely in the top 5 of kits that have left a mark on how horrid they are to build.

I’d try to pin them down to a more specific rank, but that’s a lot of trauma I’d need to unpack, and not in the mood for that.

With old metal kits if they didn’t need every bit from the casr, they could always just chuck the rest back into the scrap metal bin to be melted down again. Much easier to do that then try to recycle plastic or resin.

That’s true.

I have very little nostalgia for working with metal models.

I do of course miss some of the sculpts, but man, metal was a pain.

Some stuff (Space Marine Dreadnought) was nice and straight forward, thank to chunky contact areas. But then, other stuff had ball and socket joints, which just made me cry (like the War Walker)

In fact I’d say, the odd moulding issue aside? I’d rather work in Finecast over metal. Easier to drill into for pinning, and just took the glue better.

But plastic is king.

Odd molding issues aside? So besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Metal monopose sculps let them do things with pose and detail across the sculpt that would be hard to get the flow right with multi pose plastic kits. At the cost of fewer options. And the more 2D nature and other limits of the medium. I love my old metals, but am glad for plastics.

I had my Eldar dreadnought sit in the bits box for decades before my hobby skills advanced to the point where I could get it to stay together. Built a metal hive tyrant for a friend as his were not up to snuff. Heavy kits with tiny contact points are not fun.

Not like a dreadsock is fun.

I’ve had pretty good experiences with Finecast, so only the odd issue for me.

I get the impression finecast worked a lot better in the climate of the UK than, say, Arizona. But it still wasn't great. Durability was very low for me.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ve had pretty good experiences with Finecast, so only the odd issue for me.

I’ve had mixed, but will admit they were early in the roll out, before things were improved.

Eldar rangers were fine. Issues with resin on frail models, but that’s not finecast specific.
Fire Dragons were a mess of holes, bubles, and carving the detail out of gates.
SM sgt. talion and TFC were not bad. The cannon might have been better then metal, as I heard horror stories about building it, and mine was fine.

Plastic is still the best.

Sarigar wrote:I was talking to a buddy about all the conversion work we had to do to get the model we wanted years back. It was fun but also a bit tiresome.

To be honest, I do like modern kits and modern army design where finding bits and converting models to play a model/unit is no longer necessary.

I agree. I've always felt that conversions should be encouraged and optional instead of mandatory.
Sure I can also agree that some of GW's weapon loadout choices as of late are a bit extreme - eg taking away weapon combos that are done by combining parts from two official kits (eg winged hive tyrants with 2 sets of devourers); but I can see the logic in limiting loadouts to what comes in the box.

Which in all fairness is how most other games work.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I’ve had pretty good experiences with Finecast, so only the odd issue for me.

My experiences were always problematic. Early casts and late ones.
The issue for me wasn't just that errors would happen, but that they'd affect whole batches. It's not like regular resin where a bubble would often just be randomly in a bad spot and a new cast wouldn't have the issue - for me Finecast ran in batches so even when GW sent a replacement it could still have the very same problem in the same spot.

That and the rate was so high I just avoided the material outright. It he'd great detail, but it just wasn't reliable. The Metal that came before and the plastics after are almost 100% reliable and any errors are swiftly fixed. But the finecast in the middle just wasn't pleasing to work with.

There are other oddities in 2nd Ed. For instance, the Eldar War Walker had a fixed loadout of Lascannon and Scatter Laser. As did I think the Vyper. Those wouldn’t get weapon options until no later than 3rd Ed - but there may have been a later datafax for both which loosened that up.

But stopping myself typing Bright Lance there instead of Lascannon? I did, and still do, appreciate 3rd Ed giving each race their own weapons to play with, adding to their unique identities on the board.

Though there can be no, and will be no, forgiveness for 12” ranged Shuriken Catapults. It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now.

And not because they were horrific weapons in 2nd Ed, but because 12” on a rifle makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I remember going to my first Dragoncon and seeing the Warhammer booth there. They had the bitz seller there where some common bitz were for sale but most were on boards and you filled out a sheet and paid and a few weeks later they arrived in the mail. It was so cool to me at the time. This is early 3rd edition so the internet existed but was still relatively in its infancy and dial up for the most part.

 Nevelon wrote:
Odd molding issues aside? So besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Metal monopose sculps let them do things with pose and detail across the sculpt that would be hard to get the flow right with multi pose plastic kits. At the cost of fewer options. And the more 2D nature and other limits of the medium. I love my old metals, but am glad for plastics.

I had my Eldar dreadnought sit in the bits box for decades before my hobby skills advanced to the point where I could get it to stay together. Built a metal hive tyrant for a friend as his were not up to snuff. Heavy kits with tiny contact points are not fun.

Not like a dreadsock is fun.

Ah, this takes me back. The third ed hive tyrant, the alien queen one, had a fully metal torso, head, legs and tail. It was heavy, and you absolutely had to pin it. And then in the upper arm sockets you had to place these really long and thin plastic scything talons. I was always worried that they'd break if it'd fall over, because of the weight.

Anyway, it took a dive from a dinner table at some point and exploded into its bits on landing. The talons were ok though!

.. oh wow, it's all coming back now. The 3rd ed zoanthrope. A giant fully metal head that had a tiny connection at the neck to the rest of the body...

Don't forget the original all metal hormagaunts that could NOT stand up on their own without modifying the base!

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Odd molding issues aside? So besides that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Metal monopose sculps let them do things with pose and detail across the sculpt that would be hard to get the flow right with multi pose plastic kits. At the cost of fewer options. And the more 2D nature and other limits of the medium. I love my old metals, but am glad for plastics.

I had my Eldar dreadnought sit in the bits box for decades before my hobby skills advanced to the point where I could get it to stay together. Built a metal hive tyrant for a friend as his were not up to snuff. Heavy kits with tiny contact points are not fun.

Not like a dreadsock is fun.

Ah, this takes me back. The third ed hive tyrant, the alien queen one, had a fully metal torso, head, legs and tail. It was heavy, and you absolutely had to pin it. And then in the upper arm sockets you had to place these really long and thin plastic scything talons. I was always worried that they'd break if it'd fall over, because of the weight.

Anyway, it took a dive from a dinner table at some point and exploded into its bits on landing. The talons were ok though!

.. oh wow, it's all coming back now. The 3rd ed zoanthrope. A giant fully metal head that had a tiny connection at the neck to the rest of the body...

I was talking about the 2nd ed one, not the third. I have both these days, but the 3rd one came to me pre-built.

Overread wrote:Don't forget the original all metal hormagaunts that could NOT stand up on their own without modifying the base!

Tippy just drinks a lot and falls over. Don’t balance shame!

And for those of you younger then dirt, some pictures to illustrate some of the more fun metal models we are talking about:

Oh, and those Gargoyles. With a very, very shallow socket, and the flying stands that loved to snap their ends off.

I might still consider 2nd Ed the most fun I’ve had rules wise, but man I wish we had the modern plastic range back then.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There are other oddities in 2nd Ed. For instance, the Eldar War Walker had a fixed loadout of Lascannon and Scatter Laser. As did I think the Vyper. Those wouldn’t get weapon options until no later than 3rd Ed - but there may have been a later datafax for both which loosened that up.

I don't know where you're getting that. The Datafaxes that came with Dark Millenium had more weapon options, as did the entries in the Eldar codex. Lascannon, Scatter Laser, Plasma Cannon, Shuriken Cannon, Missile Launcher. The only limitation is that the Vyper couldn't take a Missile Launcher, and the War Walker couldn't take Shuriken Cannons. The WW could double up on any weapon choice too, by my reading of it.

The Eldar Dreadnought (Wraithlord) could take a D-Cannon too, which was pretty cool.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Though there can be no, and will be no, forgiveness for 12” ranged Shuriken Catapults. It was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now.

And not because they were horrific weapons in 2nd Ed, but because 12” on a rifle makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I'll stand by the theory behind the limited range of the Shuriken catapult in 3rd because it was an Assault weapon, opening up the wielders to be a much more maneuverable unit in the end. They could fire twice on the move (Rapid Fire weapons could not, in 3rd), and Assault afterwards. Despite Eldar having the same move as Marines in the 3rd ed system, the Assault nature of the Shuriken Catapult meant they could take more actions in a turn than humans/marines. They could move, shoot more effectively, and then Assault. It actually made the Eldar capable of more meaningful speed than just having a +1 to their movement characteristic.

This advantage eroded quickly as editions changed, but for third I think it was kinda brilliant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Hormagaunts and Termagants were in squad sizes up to 24. Genestealers and Gargoyles were were up to 12.

I thought the gants and gaunts were actually back down to 20 per unit this edition. I'm going off the Index as a I never bought the codex, but I remember realizing that termagants would max out at 120 this edition.

Ahh yes you're right, its been a while since I last played this edition and yeah Gaunts are way back down to 20 per unit this edition!

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:

There were also a lot more toolbox models back then, even if the kit didn't have all the parts, there were many more "this model does all the things just vary the loadout". This is something we've seen GW chip away at here and there and 10th feels like they've really cut away with a lot.
There's good and bad in that, but I can see why when back then most armies were pretty small; whilst today there are a LOT of choices for each army in what models to take.

I think modern GW is keen on making you buy new kits to open up new tactical opportunities, rather than simple wargear/spell swaps.

There's 100% GW wanting us to buy more kits; but at the same time customers also want more kits. You see a new edition of a codex and everyone is throwing out ideas for either replacements of existing models that are old; or ideas for new models they'd love to see. Some refreshes of old models that were once there and got removed; some FW alternate models and some just fully new ideas or things that other armies can do that they wish their army could do.

So you've got GW wanting to sell stuff and customers wanting to buy and personally I honestly prefer having 5 different models with unique appearances and lore* over having 1 model with 5 different weapon options. Even if you can use magnets to get more out of the model, the unique appearances and more diversity in a collection really makes it stand out more and be more exciting.


*yes GW I'm STILL very salty that you've stopped putting unit by unit pages/duel pages of lore into the modern codex!

When it comes to Marines in particular, I'm gonna do a hard disagree. I like that the classic paradigm is just "marine in power armor with different equipment", and that you didn't have to buy several Dreadnoughts in order to get different loadouts. The Marines because it made conversions by swapping parts and equipment around so fun and easy, and the Dreadnoughts because. . . well there only needs to be one Dreadnought model, The Boxnought, because it's perfect.

Oh, another grump?

The step backwards in Marines tanks, taking the Predator from a fully plastic kit to…..a bloody awful and ugly looking metal hybrid kit.

The Razorback I’m less miffed about, as at least that was just a metal turret. The Predator had metal sponson weapons.

I mean, from this?



To this



Gorgeous, to Fugly.

Oh wow, that is a downgrade. When you put them next to each other the newer kit looks like an Ork looted vehicle.

The Predator Annihilator kept the curved turret, but somehow looked even worse.



Not sure if it’s just everything being….chunky, or the fact the Turret is mounted so far forward, giving a lopsided look.

Yeah the sponsons would probably look fine on the current Rhino kit, but they are really oversized on this one. Gorilla arm vibes.

And yet still better than the ones that followed on the next version, due to not relying on a small plastic section to support the gun...

 Dysartes wrote:
And yet still better than the ones that followed on the next version, due to not relying on a small plastic section to support the gun...

At that made them easy to magnetize.

I like the modern preds, but will agree that the middle ones are the weakest. They are not alone in this, aspect warriors say hello.

 Dysartes wrote:
And yet still better than the ones that followed on the next version, due to not relying on a small plastic section to support the gun...

The aesthetics are much better though, IMO.

Having never owned either I can't vouch for durability differences between thin plastic and a huge lump of metal superglued to plastic. The latter is probably better when pinned, but that is more modelling work.

I consider the Heresy Predator kit(s) to now be the definitive article. Lovely aesthetic, and benefits from design hindsight.

I feel like Lord Damocles should join this conversation. On Warseer he built a complete 2nd ed Tyranid army, complete with swearing.

That good ol metal hybrid predator annihilator was my first 40k vehicle, got it for my 15th birthday iirc.

It was the one I mentioned in an older post that gave me the great scenario of kharn charging its front only to cause it to run him over.

Classic newly painted model immediately dies syndrome.