Ideas and resources for playing 4th edition 40K?

[Cleon]

I think the issue in HH is that Dreadnoughts got a 2+ save, not that they moved to a wounds and save profile. T8 3+ 3 or 4 wounds and eternal warrior for a standard marine dreadnought in 4th ed would feel right to me, assuming you tweaked the points.

[Antarius]

 

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

 

 

Yeah, the big problem definitely was the different mechanics that applied to what should’ve been the same type of model.

[calgar101]

I got into the game in 3rd Ed, up until 5th Ed I definitely agree there was a different feel to the 'game', it wad absolutely in my eyes a hobby driven past time and this game from GW themselves. I still have all my old WD from 1999 onwards and there's countless of articles on adding cool things into your games. 

I've been looking at playing 3rd/4th Ed myself and will follow this with interest. 

I was raised on 1 HQ and 2 Troops haha.

 

That's Daemon hunter, scenario where the enemy Hq is possessed was in a White Dwarf I believe. 

 

I also think vehicles would need some tweak to avoid that 1 hit boom of a Lan Raider.

 

[Marshal Rohr]

Using the 3rd/4th Edition Imperial Guard lists from forge world vs vraksian renegades actually felt like a wargame. It’s been my biggest let down neu-Heresy isn’t introducing granular Imperial Army doctrines that let everyone relive the glory days of showing up to a Saturday get together and seeing Steel Legion, Cadians, Mordians, and Catachan on four different tables playing four very different ways. 

[Doghouse]

Having seen this thread the more I look into 4th the more I am leaning towards playing that edition again. It's a 3rd edition but tidied up.

 

If I remember right I can use 3rd ed Demonhunters and Witch hunters books with 4th? If so I am doing Inquisitoral Stormtroopers with my plastic Kasrkin.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

 

I got into the game in 3rd Ed, up until 5th Ed I definitely agree there was a different feel to the 'game', it wad absolutely in my eyes a hobby driven past time and this game from GW themselves. I still have all my old WD from 1999 onwards and there's countless of articles on adding cool things into your games. 

I've been looking at playing 3rd/4th Ed myself and will follow this with interest. 

I was raised on 1 HQ and 2 Troops haha.

 

That's Daemon hunter, scenario where the enemy Hq is possessed was in a White Dwarf I believe. 

 

I also think vehicles would need some tweak to avoid that 1 hit boom of a Lan Raider.

 

 

Yeah, I agree.. I don´t like the feel now and it is not (just) me getting older and grumpier.. There was min-maxing and excessive Meta-search back then. But not as much, thanks to less internet perhaps.. Not sure.

I did pretty good lists and played to win (more then than now) - but i also did not compromise much on background (always had full Packs of Grey Hunters from my 2nd Ed days for example).

To me, it was a ncier time.. And it is not just nostalgia and that stuff. The game has changed as have the community.

 

It never bothered me too much with vehicles.. I mean it did, but i came from 2nd Ed and it was basically as violent then. But suddenly you could use transports..

In 2nd Ed you screened vehicles with other vehicles 8being closer9, auto-launchers with Blind Grenades, could, help - but many AT-weapons were mobile (I used Land Speeders).

It was just different and you got used to it. We also used, alot of terrain, and much of it area like forests.

 

But maybe it is better with wounds? I am curious now - never played with veicles with wounds as I basically left 40k when 5th Ed dropped. Playing..

 

 

 

 

Having seen this thread the more I look into 4th the more I am leaning towards playing that edition again. It's a 3rd edition but tidied up.

 

If I remember right I can use 3rd ed Demonhunters and Witch hunters books with 4th? If so I am doing Inquisitoral Stormtroopers with my plastic Kasrkin.

 

You absolutely can!

[Doghouse]

Just a shame Karamazov has gone out of production, I've always wanted to buy him but never really had the need for him till now. 

 

Think I will check out that club Brother Tyler linked earlier for sure.  

[calgar101]

@Wolf Lord Duregar I completely agree with you there. I never played 2nd Ed, but In all editions including where they had hull points, vehicles have always been more vulnerable than creatures. You can't tell me a Land Raider with all it's armour and bulk is easier to one shot than say a Carnifex? 

Some would toughness system for them in 4th Ed would work I think.

 

The game back then definitely had more fun/interesting side, it wasn't all about take this combo to steam roll everyone. Chapter Approved was all about making armies more thematic and fit how they were portrayed in the books.

 

I started as an 8 year old and didn't fully appreciate 3rd/4th Ed... now... ahh I miss those days.

 

@Doghouse I remember when Karamazov and the Witch Hunter book dropped, I too wish I collected him and the wider army.

Edited August 17 by calgar101

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Yeah.. One of my buddies had a Land Raider in 2nd Ed, he found a couple and restored one and we played soccer with one that had lost all the weapons.. It did not break though.

 

It was not that tough in 2nd Ed.. Hull was AV 22 iirc. Lascannons had 9 plus 3D6 (no glancing). Penning meant bad things.. but it was shooty.. And you had to shoot the closest target (in this case closest vehicle).
Carnifex? Ultra tough.. Could upgrade with extra toughness and Inv save iirc, when the Codex dropped. 10 wounds.. Lascannon did 2D6. Multi-melta did 2D12 but had less negative save modifier. We usually spammed Asscannon-fire on it.. D10 wounds per hit that went through and with a couple, it did sooner or later..

It could be dealt with, like tied up - but point being, yeah. Much tougher than Land Raiders IMHO..

 

3rd/4th was.. More interesting in many ways though, the expanded background, models, support.. Great times..  I had some "periods". Early with this gang.. Then later during 4th a very active and mature group actually playing every week. Never played so much as then even though I played alot during 2nd Ed..

part of the nostalgia, many memories. but I think it was a good period too.

[crimsondave]

I think 10th finally got vehicles right.  I wish 10th vehicle rules translated to earlier editions.

[calgar101]

I'd say from a rules perspective vehicles and monstrous creatures should have both used wounds and toughness. 

 

My first global campaign was the 13th Black Crusade and that was done far better story wise than the current setting. 

 

I was reading through WD 279(UK) and read the Chapter Approved article on the Cursed Founding. They don't do articles like that no more!

 

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

It is nice to check through the old White Dwarfs, for sure.. Do that quite often, that "era" from 250 to 300 is full of nice stuff. There is great stuff before too but I think that time was extra nice overall with what was going on game-wise, for me.

 

Cursed Founding, that´s the article with those dudes with claws on their arms right?

[calgar101]

Agree on that front with you there, my first WD as a collector wad 274 (I've gone and bought older ones since), and yeah WD 300 was about where it peaked for me.

 

That's right with the Cutsed Founding, the Black Dragons have abnormal bone growth and then you have few other chapters with 'unique abilities '.

[Valkyrion]

 

Agree on that front with you there, my first WD as a collector wad 274 (I've gone and bought older ones since), and yeah WD 300 was about where it peaked for me.

 

That's right with the Cutsed Founding, the Black Dragons have abnormal bone growth and then you have few other chapters with 'unique abilities '.

 

You younglings and your White Dwarf 300's. WD134 is where it peaked with free missions and quests for Hero Quest and Space Crusade!

[calgar101]

My first was 273

I started to slowly but issues before then, some really good gems.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Yeah. My club had a subscription so read the ones around, the first i remember is WD 156. But it was not until 193 I bought my own as it was then availble in a news agent in my small town..  Did not get them every month but tried to. Soon after a small computer games store stocked GW and then it was easier - and cheaper..

There are still articles i have not read in them..

[calgar101]

Ahhh nice nice. My local toy shop stocked GW and every release day I'd get WD with my pocket money haha. The good times!

I'm slowly filling my WD collection.. even the crap ones.

All my early WD were read cover to cover dozens of times. 

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

Were there crap ones?? Yeah, it is ncie to check them now and then.. Very cliche but that first A Tale of Four Gamers really started me on WHFB as well. it worked.. I did not fully commit until 6th Ed dropped but I got some stuff (Wood Elves book and some models) after that..

 

The battle Reports for 6th Ed WHFB release are probably still my favs. Two, Orcs 6 Goblins, Empire, green mat, Citadell trees..
Well apart from the 2nd Ed 40k ones with Space Wolves. The late RT one that was in the Codex Space Wolves as well as the Blood Angels vs Orks when 2nd Ed dropped -with Tycho..

 

Need a cup of coffee and check some again..

[calgar101]

In my early days I focused mainly on 40k, I read the Fantasy battle reports but didn't have much of a clue. However I read Fat Blokes tale of building his Chaos Warrior force with great interest. Tale of 4 games was always a good read. 

[Antarius]

I recently came upon an archive of all the official publications for the different editions. There were 15 for 4th (although I guess there were some 3/3.5 codices that would have to be included as well), while there were 117 for 8th and about 50 more for 9th.

So I guess the feeling of "the mental load of following this game and keeping up to date on the different rules, factions and possible weird stuff that I might have to take into account" wasn't just about me getting older and stupider - not that I'm about to pretend that I'm not getting older and stupider, but still...

[Doghouse]

I think that is the beauty of older editions, they're completed and capsulized in comparison to the trend of current edition grind so you don't have to keep checking for updates. The other thing to remember is a lot of modern models can be proxied into older editions with a few obvious exceptions but even then you can create your own rules. I think 3rd edition had Vehicle design rules in the Chapter Approved 2001 compendium that could be used to transfer stuff like the Dorn or Repulsor tanks. 

[calgar101]

The older editions had less rule sets, and look how thin a 3rd Ed codex was, 4th Ed ones increased in size but mostly more background material was added.

You did get Chapter Approved articles that added a new unit or some such but they were done to enhance the story, in my view anyway. 

5th edition was where the bloat started in my opinion.

 

I think you could definitely proxy newer stuff into 4th Ed and wouldn't be a huge mental exercise. Some of the units that have quietly been deleted/removed is sad. The direction of the game now is not to my liking, this started in 6th and 7th when running formations etc in games led to stupidity. 

 

As I said earlier, I was raised on 1 Hq and 2 troops... bring back the classic Force Org chart! Haha.

[Antarius]

 

The older editions had less rule sets, and look how thin a 3rd Ed codex was, 4th Ed ones increased in size but mostly more background material was added.

You did get Chapter Approved articles that added a new unit or some such but they were done to enhance the story, in my view anyway. 

5th edition was where the bloat started in my opinion.

 

I think you could definitely proxy newer stuff into 4th Ed and wouldn't be a huge mental exercise. Some of the units that have quietly been deleted/removed is sad. The direction of the game now is not to my liking, this started in 6th and 7th when running formations etc in games led to stupidity. 

 

As I said earlier, I was raised on 1 Hq and 2 troops... bring back the classic Force Org chart! Haha.

5th did see a lot more add-ons and new stuff added, but I think in 6th was where the bloat really started taking off with new supplements and formations all over the place.

As for the force org chart, I really like it too. In many ways I think 5th did start some of (what I see as) the problems by allowing players to mess too much with the force org chart by taking various different characters/leaders. Something which the formations only intensified, of course.

[calgar101]

Yeah I agree there, the bloat issue has deep roots in 5th and the advent of death star spamming etc.

[Antarius]

Yeah, that and I actually enjoy a certain level of restrictions on my army building, as I find it more thematic. Which is probably why I like the force org chart so much.

That being said, I do like the "micro-adjustments" that some army lists allowed for (usually exchanging one slot for another, or having more of one type of slot at the cost of zero others etc.), as they do give some flavour. But once it became "take this guy so you don't have to bother with the troops tax" it became disruptive.