Ideas and resources for playing 4th edition 40K?

[Antarius]

The idea of playing 4th edition has been cropping up in my mind from time to time during the last year or two, as I've completely dropped out of even trying to pretend I'm interested in the newest version of 40K. Today, with a bit of a hangover, I picked up my mini-rulebook for 4th and started idly perusing it, which led to me thinking that it might actually be something I'd actually want to play.
Part of it is probably nostalgia, as it was the edition where the game sorta peaked for me, personally. But I also just really like the (relative) simplicity of the game mechanics and the level of abstraction (especially when it comes to LoS and model removal, as I utterly loathed the TLOS and wound-allocation "minigame" of 5th), although I guess I sort of miss USRs from 5th.

So I'm wondering, do any of you know of any good sites/other resources for 4th edition? And do you have any other ideas or suggestions for what (not) to do if I wanted to pick up 4th again?

I'm already considering houseruling the vehicle damage tables slightly, to make transports less of a death trap, but overall I'd like to keep it pretty simple - but there might be obvious "fixes" to problems with the game that I'm not aware of, so what are your thoughts?

[Brother Tyler]

We have the Oldhammer club for fans of older editions, but there isn't much for 4th edition in there [yet]. I know that this community developed quite a few homegrown rules for that edition of the game, though we were limited to power armour at that time (there were probably half a dozen or more codices for different Chapters, for example). What 4th edition resources do you have? Is there anything in particular that you're looking for?

[Beta galactosidase]

There's a set of rules based on fourth edition that does most of the things I used to want 40k to do.  it's on dakka.  link

 

It might be more than you want but people use it.

[Evil Eye]

One very important thing to bear in mind is 4E is highly backwards-compatible with 3E, moreso than almost any other edition change, which means if you or your group prefer a 3E (or 3.5E) Codex to its 4E counterpart (as you might with Orks or Chaos) you can absolutely use them instead whilst still using the refined 4E core rules. Likewise the Chapter Approved supplements and Imperial Armour books made for 3E will (mostly) work with 4E. There are a few very minor exceptions to that but nothing that can't be house-ruled or otherwise very easily resolved, especially given you're playing an old edition.

[LameBeard]

Does that mean the legendary Feral Orks and similar lists would fit?

 

I would seek out the White Dwarfs with the different environment rules, like Swamps was one. I think 4th edition might have had the pdf Catachan codex with jungle fighting rules as well. I always wanted to give those a try … 4th edition is a good choice.

[2PlusEasy]

The distinct advantage about 4th edition is that it's a mostly revised 3rd edition, and fully backwards compatible with 3rd as mentioned above. 3e got messy by the end of its run, 4e is the result in a tidier package.

 

It is backwards compatible, but certain 3e army lists like Dark Eldar, Genestealer Cults from Citadel Journal and Feral Orks from chapter approved will struggle, but only if the games are played competitively which the designers made very clear is not what Oldhammer was designed around.

 

The 4e big rulebook includes the combat patrol ("40k in 40 minutes") and kill team play formats, lots of thematic missions with a clear attacker and defender and a simplistic campaign system. So this is the first place to start.

 

As far as resources go... it's a dead edition of a niche hobby that hasn't been supported in 16 years. If you want the resources badly enough, they're not hard to find on Google, Facebook etc.

 

[Edit] Three recommendations I'll provide is:

 

A) don't take base sizes too seriously. If players want to use modern marines on 32mm bases, old termies on 25mm bases or space marine bikes on 25 x 50mm squares, let them. Focus instead on enjoying the game. 

 

B) Try smaller point-sized games with 4e. The best games I've had of 4e were between 750 - 1250pt. And,

 

C) Play Combat Patrol and 4e Kill Team games. They're fun and break up the formats. Find ways to tie them into your regular 40k games.

Edited August 7 by 2PlusEasy

[Antarius]

Thanks for your replies, everybody 

 

I also remember 4th as pretty much the “definitive 3rd”, which is sort of what I’m looking for, as I didn’t really enjoy most of the changes that 5th brought. But some houseruling and fiddling with stuff is inevitable of course, so I might just end up incorporating the good things from 5th.

in any case, it’s going to be quite casual/narrative, so I don’t really expect a lot of difficulties arising from base sizes and the like. But we’ll see 

[Antarius]

Having read through the 3.5 Chaos codex, Space Marine codex and the Eye of Terror campaign book, I gotta say the way armies were constructed back then was just much cooler. I had completely forgotten how much I missed the 0-1 (and similar) restrictions on units, combined with the freedom of giving your units traits and veteran skills and so on.

 

I also suspect that things were, on the whole, more balanced back then -or at least that imbalances were much easier to spot. 

[LameBeard]

Having had a quick look on my computer I’m also struck by the treasure trove of this era. That codex Catachans is marked copyright 2002-2005 and is by Andy, Jervis and Gav. Other gems from around that time include a harlequins pdf, armoured company, the Tau human auxiliaries, I think they will be compatible. I’m now wondering if I can find the daemonhunters codex - did they eventually release as a pdf - with the crazy rules for your opponent’s HQ to become a greater daemon? Today’s models with yesterday’s rules is definitely the way to go - I’m very jealous of you.

 

On balance, I suspect it is a little better, because there’s less scope for unintended combos of special rules and stratagems, more acceptance by the designers that some units can just be similar and let their stat line do the talking. But there were many factions, many units and alternative ways to build armies, with different codex authors and so the overall difficulty of balance remains. Didn’t everyone moan about Eldar shooting them off the board in EVERY edition of the game?

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, LameBeard said:

Eldar shooting them off the board in EVERY edition of the game?

 

yea, the Eldar invulnerable Flying Circus of 4th ed (or was it early 5th?)was particularly oppressive, however as long as your opponents are playing for fun and story, and the group self-regulates the broken things, it should be ok. 

[2PlusEasy]

I

9 hours ago, LameBeard said:

 

On balance, I suspect it is a little better, because there’s less scope for unintended combos of special rules and stratagems, more acceptance by the designers that some units can just be similar and let their stat line do the talking. But there were many factions, many units and alternative ways to build armies, with different codex authors and so the overall difficulty of balance remains. Didn’t everyone moan about Eldar shooting them off the board in EVERY edition of the game?

 

I don't necessarily think it was more balanced. The 3e - 4e era certainly had its balance issues: comparing Dark Eldar to Eldar for example was a one sided game, and the 3.5 chaos codex had some combinations which were horrible experiences to be across the table from. But at face value, it felt less noticeable then later editions for a few reasons:

 

• The ruleset was less bloated and easier to remember then later editions (I still remember 80% of it from 20 years ago)

 

• Armies had less unit choices and less special rules then today which didn't detract from the game's character and feel

 

• Codexes were cheaper and more accessible, which meant less "gotcha" moments.

 

• The scale of games were smaller (in most cases) with less access to special and heavy weaponry

 

• The designers were transparent that they wanted 40k to be characterful, not competitive. The rulebook and supplements are filled with "scenarios" rather then "matches"

 

• Less people used the internet back then. There was a meta, but it was more isolated and the netlist culture wasn't as prolific as today. Most people playing at Cancon in Australia weren't tracking tournament results at Adepticon in the US at all let alone the same day in 2004, and GW wasn't scrambling to rewrite their game 4 times a year in response to these events

 

• 4e built upon 3e rather then reinventing the wheel. The corporate gamer's knowledge remained intact with minor adjustments rather then throwing out the window every 3 years.

 

• I also think less people cared about balance back then: they were inspired by white dwarf which featured batreps that reenacted movies and articles that taught them how to make the hobby their own. The battle for macragge starter set was all narrative scenarios like keeping the genestealers outside the electrical fence or escorting the gene seed through a spore mine field without detonating the spore mines. It was the era of the hobbyist wanting a good time rather then the gamer wanting a good result.

 

4e's flaws were part of its charm and it's focus on fun while being easy to remember were its strong points. 

Edited August 9 by 2PlusEasy

[LameBeard]

Me and my big mouth.  
 

Back on the point about resources, I  think White Dwarf from that period went through one of its golden eras (the time around the Two Towers and Return of the King, with Specialist Games pretty quiet or in their own magazines, so 40k still gets about 1/3 of the issue), and it’s worth grabbing what you can. Eg there was one where they introduced abhumans back into the  Imperial Guard, through the use of doctrines, and then showed you the conversions - it might even have been Andy Hoare doing what he encourages now with the 30k Exemplary Battles.

[Harrowmaster]

11 hours ago, LameBeard said:

Having had a quick look on my computer I’m also struck by the treasure trove of this era. That codex Catachans is marked copyright 2002-2005 and is by Andy, Jervis and Gav. Other gems from around that time include a harlequins pdf, armoured company, the Tau human auxiliaries, I think they will be compatible. I’m now wondering if I can find the daemonhunters codex - did they eventually release as a pdf - with the crazy rules for your opponent’s HQ to become a greater daemon? Today’s models with yesterday’s rules is definitely the way to go - I’m very jealous of you.

 

On balance, I suspect it is a little better, because there’s less scope for unintended combos of special rules and stratagems, more acceptance by the designers that some units can just be similar and let their stat line do the talking. But there were many factions, many units and alternative ways to build armies, with different codex authors and so the overall difficulty of balance remains. Didn’t everyone moan about Eldar shooting them off the board in EVERY edition of the game?

Daemonhunters is available on google but the armoury page (pg 16) seems to be missing from it

[LameBeard]

57 minutes ago, Harrowmaster said:

Daemonhunters is available on google but the armoury page (pg 16) seems to be missing from it

I have pdfs for Daemonhunters (2002?) and Witch Hunters (2004?) but it doesn’t include adversary daemon rules, maybe that was a later edition? Or maybe the pdf excluded them compared to the print version.

[Harrowmaster]

12 minutes ago, LameBeard said:

I have pdfs for Daemonhunters (2002?) and Witch Hunters (2004?) but it doesn’t include adversary daemon rules, maybe that was a later edition? Or maybe the pdf excluded them compared to the print version.

There very well could be multiple versions, from what I can tell the google result gives one with the adversary rules but not the armoury 

[TheTrans]

I ran a 30 odd player 3.5 ed edition down in Victoria, Australia about 6 weeks ago and it was an absolute blast to EO and play in. 

 

The game was simple enough that people aren't leaning into weird edge cases of gotchas or loopholes (and if we felt a question was trying something :cuss:ty on, we said no)..

 

But the shear breadth of different, flavourful armies available was awesome, not to mention Vehicle/Monster design rules, white dwarf codexs and the amazingly flavourful, yet non-bloated codexs. 

 

I feel another joy of 3.5/4th (only commenting from 3rd ed codexs though) was for 95% of the models, their statlines and wargear did the talking. Special rules where generally few and far between, and not too over the top, there where no stratagems/reactions etc, so when playing the game, things rely on good decisions, but don't bog down into 4 stage combos of gotchas. (As an aside, while power weapons just flat ignoring armour, while less nuanced than later editions, keeps things moving at a decent pace!).

 

Lethality was so much lower also, and deciding to move or shoot at full effect is a massive decision to make (Also no snap shots is so useful, saves so much time on 'oh what if' rolls which generally lead to nothing... oe bull:cuss: feel bad haha). 

 

TL:DR, only talking from 3.5ed 40k and 6th ed WHFB, (and Mordheim) that bracket of time from like 99-04/05 I think were GWs true golden years. Probably an element of nostalgia, but I don't think you can go wrong with anything from that time frame! 

[Antarius]

 

Less people used the internet back then. There was a meta, but it was more isolated and the netlist culture wasn't as prolific as today. Most people playing at Cancon in Australia weren't tracking tournament results at Adepticon in the US at all let alone the same day in 2004, and GW wasn't scrambling to rewrite their game 4 times a year in response to these events

You make a lot of good points, but I sort of think this one is "the big one", if we want to single out specific points. In my gaming group we've spent a lot of time talking about how "broken" army/combo XYZ was, for the simple reason that it existed out there on the internet, which actually made us enjoy the game less even if noone in the group really used that army/combo (and before you ask, yes, we are idiots, apparently). That being said, whether it is solely due to the internet or the late 5th ed. codexes, we also started to experience one-sided games with "Ha, ha! lists" during the last couple of years of 5th ed. and I suspect the internet was a factor there, too.
So, while it's probably not all perception and the insidious influence of the internet, I do think it played a huge role in changing the perspective of the hobby community at large.

Edited August 10 by Antarius

[Harrowmaster]

I think these days the tournament scene has a huge influence on the game as a whole while in 4th/5th it was seen as a more isolated way to play and not what the game was designed for.

[2PlusEasy]

 

I think these days the tournament scene has a huge influence on the game as a whole while in 4th/5th it was seen as a more isolated way to play and not what the game was designed for.

 

Very true. ITC 10 years ago let alone 20 wasn't even acknowledged. But then again, GW didn't acknowledge or support anything.

 

Following on with a recommendation: remember the table can be your 3rd player in 4e. 4e has rules for different terrain types (cover Vs concealment Vs fortifications Vs difficult terrain) and also includes rules for barbed wire, tank traps, minefields, carnivorous plants etc. I recommend using these rules and playing the scenarios that utilise them fully.

 

 

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

4th Ed is in my humble opinions the best.. I started when 2nd Ed dropped and had a blast. I would still want to play more of it but it needs.. players to not abuse it. And not too large forces. I had trouble adjusting to 3rd Ed and was not really happy until I got my Codex: Space Wolves but actually enjoyed it alot then and before too. But 4th Ed was a happy time, Peak 40k for me.. More new and ncie players around and regular play. never played as regular as then i think. And the feel, the support in White Dwarf felt real good. Same as for 6th Ed WHFB at the same time for me..

 

There is a good Facebook group for 4th Ed.  Need a link? I am not on FB too often but i check it when i do..

[Harrowmaster]

Another thought I had which is probably obvious but I wanted to put down: Don't forget about the scenarios found in some of the codexes and optional rules such as chapter tactics and regimental doctrines. 

[roryokane]

 

4th Ed is in my humble opinions the best.. I started when 2nd Ed dropped and had a blast. I would still want to play more of it but it needs.. players to not abuse it. And not too large forces. I had trouble adjusting to 3rd Ed and was not really happy until I got my Codex: Space Wolves but actually enjoyed it alot then and before too. But 4th Ed was a happy time, Peak 40k for me.. More new and ncie players around and regular play. never played as regular as then i think. And the feel, the support in White Dwarf felt real good. Same as for 6th Ed WHFB at the same time for me..

 

There is a good Facebook group for 4th Ed.  Need a link? I am not on FB too often but i check it when i do..

The only thing I think was a good add from 5th onwards was effectively adding wounds (HP) to vehicles, to make the whole "one lascannon shot destroys your land raider" thing impossible.
Also, HH 2.0 treats SM dreads like wraithlords (toughness instead of AV), and I feel like all dreadnoughts (SM, Chaos, & Ork) should have that retrofitted into the ruleset, because it does make them sturdier.
 

[TheTrans]

 

The only thing I think was a good add from 5th onwards was effectively adding wounds (HP) to vehicles, to make the whole "one lascannon shot destroys your land raider" thing impossible.
Also, HH 2.0 treats SM dreads like wraithlords (toughness instead of AV), and I feel like all dreadnoughts (SM, Chaos, & Ork) should have that retrofitted into the ruleset, because it does make them sturdier.
 

 

6th onwards had hullpoints, while it certainly does help with vehicles getting sort of 'glance' locked, it doesn't stop a lascannon 1 hitting your landraider. 

 

Dreadnoughts are pretty overbearing in HH2.0, got a bit too much of a tune-up with thr jump to MCs. So not sure of that's quite the fix we want or need haha. 

[Antarius]

I think it was in late 5th, with the Dreadknight thing, that it became apparent that it was better to be a monstrous creature than a walker, so some designers just started giving obvious walkers monstrous creature rules instead. That’s the sort of thing that really makes it obvious that there’s either a problem with the basic categories or with codex design.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

I felt since 3rd Ed that Wraithlords were just superior in survivability over Dreadnoughts, no?

 

Gav Thorpe defended Wraithlord in the Eldar Designer´s note (Wd 236 or so) that a heavy bolter could hurt it on 6s (and it got a save) while Dreadnoughts could not be. But why would you waste precious heavy bolter shots on such low odds?

Whatever is best - that period with some "Dreadnoughts" have AV and others wounds was.. Not nice in my humble opinion..