Ideas and resources for playing 4th edition 40K?

[calgar101]

@Deus_Ex_Machina That is a really cool and fitting idea, works with the 4th Ed trait system very well. 

I may paint up 10 Intercessors in the Mentor Legion colours as a tribute to this.

[Xenith]

 

@Doghouse:

 

Some food for thought for Intercessors in 4th 40K. I have the 4th 40K SM codex in hand and it was the first one which allowed to customize your SM force akin to the 3.5 CSM codex. With that system you could unlock traits & disadvantages which would be a neat way to address the Intercessors.

 

 

I think you're overthinking this - in all editions, Mk 3 through 8 all have the same rules, and even then MkX has no special rules, however it's the marine that is more special. Mk X armour should have exactly the same special rules as Mk7 (i.e. none), and even veterans only had 1W, so no way should primaris have 2 (unless you want to go HH2 route and make all vets W2, however that strays too far from 40K 4.0). If you wanted to represent primaris, I'd maybe consider having it just be the bolt rifles, or perhaps furious charge at a maximum. Intercessors units would be units of 5-10 without the ability to have specials. Likewise, hellblasters would be a heavy choice, all with plasmas, costed at the premium price point of multi special/heavy units (lascannons were 15pts in a tactical and 25pts in a dev squad).

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

As soon as you introduce Intercessors into a vintage SM army the Tacticals become obsolete. The bolt rifle is just way superior in comparison to a bolter and the single heavy/special weapon of the Tactical squad would in most turns not make much of a difference. Therefore I postulated a bunch of limitations to even the playing field for the Tactical squad.  

 

The same happened by the way when in the 3.5 CSM codex the Dreadnought got competition in form of the Defiler. Suddenly the Defiler popped up in every list while the Dreadnought landed on the junkyard.

[LightningClawLeonard]

Depends on one’s personal objective in playing an older edition, but for me it’s reducing the number of narratively identical datasheets and the excess rules information needed to just play the game. I’m highly interested in a game where tactics, decision making and scenario have prominence/emphasis over off-table stuff like stratagems, enhancements, USRs, etc. As someone who just got into the hobby last year but is very interested in playing 3rd/4th/5th type rules, my plan has just been to run intercessors squads as “MK X tactical squads” and count the bolt rifles as bolters. Same for Assault Intercessors -> Assault Marines, etc. I figure I can combine the various heavy weapons units with Tacticus armor to make Devastator squads, etc.  Which really is a question if I even want to, for now Tactical and Devastator kits are still readily available.

 

 

Speaking of my look into 3rd/4th/5th, I have been strongly swayed to 4th after keeping up with this thread. Seems like the best of both worlds being able to use 3rd and 4th codices relatively seamlessly. I already have the Black Templars codex from 4th and Index Astartes #2. I’ve been comparing prices online for the 4th edition rulebook and various 3rd and 4th codices.  My two questions for anyone who was playing at that time are:

 

1) Do you have any favorite rules or codices?

 

I recently was recommended a series of videos on YouTube called “Warhammer was Cooler When…” where the topic is cool or unique rules from older editions. One example was Tau being able to pay extra points to get ejection seats in mechs and pilots being able to eject when the vehicle was destroyed and join an infantry Tau unit, and another was Dark Eldar having the chance to turn missions into Slave Raids where they try to overrun and then enslave enemy troops. Stuff like that is the sort of stuff I am interested in hearing about.

 

2) Do you have any thoughts on which version of a codex is preferred for factions that have both 3rd and 4th codex, or ones that have both a 3 and 3.5 codex?
 

Some factions like Space Wolves, Necrons or Dark Eldar only had one over the course of those editions, but in the case of other armies that have two or three, I am interested in opinions on what might make one better, worse, or more interesting than the other(s).

[calgar101]

It has been so long since I read all the 3-4th books/army lists etc I'm tempted to say just take the latest edition you can, I think those armies that got a 4th edition book would play better.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

@LightningClawLeonard:

I have played 40K from 2nd to 5th. So here is my take on the matter:

 

3rd 40K codices are pretty flimsy affairs which is not necessarily a bad thing. It would be very easy to track them down as they were the cheapest of all codices. 3rd 40K also introduced the vehicle construction rules which even allowed to create Tyranid monstrosities. The 4th 40K core book is a gold mine as it comes with a ton of scenarios which would actually happen in a war. So nobody is squatting on circles and counting points. Furthermore you will find a new mode of playing 40K in this book namely a skirmish version of it. This was by the way the first incarnation of Kill-Team and you didn´t need to throw crazy money at it to obtain the rules as they were already included in the basic book of said edition.

 

Forget 5th 40K as the prevalent idea for the codices was this:

ANYTHING GOES!

 

This meant special characters could be taken by different armies of a similar faction as the excuse was that the galaxy is a big place and extraordinary individuals such as Sly Marbo grew on trees. So everybody could field one. To be more precise in the case of Sly Marbo every IG regiment could field him as long as the player made the effort to kitbash him. The same approach applied to vanilla SM special characters. Do you wanna field Kantor or Shrike in your vanilla SM force? No problem, give him another name and you are good to go.

This edition was further hampered by the atrocious wound allocation rules making Nobz Bikers almost unkillable.

 

And now more info about the codices in general:

3rd SM:

Solid affair.

 

4th SM:

It introduced the trait system with which you could create your own SM chapter or be able to play for the first time further loyal SM chapters who weren´t UM, BA, DA or SW. This was LOTS of fun.

 

3rd IG (Catachans):

The Catachans got their own codex which OOZED Vietnam warfare. Very good stuff!

 

4th IG:

Regiment rules were introduced for the first time. Again very good stuff!

 

3rd Orks:

Solid affair. An In Nomine Imperatoris article introduced a "Feral Orks" army list.

 

3rd Chaos:

CSM & Daemons shared a codex here. Solid affair.

 

3.5 CSM:

The best codex ever written as it offered an insane amount of options of how to build an army.

 

4th CSM:

The downgrade. All options were suddenly banned from the previous codex and all CSM no longer had any Legion rules but differed instead in the way they were painted. Even daemons lost flavour as the four chaos gods no longer played a role. This meant CSM had access to a single generic core daemon slot and a generic HQ daemon slot.

[Xenith]

 

As soon as you introduce Intercessors into a vintage SM army the Tacticals become obsolete. 

I would disagree. 3rd edition veterans were just tactical marines with +1Ld. Superior in every way, but never seen on the table... because we have point costs. A bolt rifle at 30" range, on a 17/18pt model probably won't see the table. Remember that bolters in 4th are largely worthless against marines and it's the las/plas that does the killing. 

Edited August 28 by Xenith

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

The 3rd 40K SM veterans were poorly implemented from 2nd 40K to the third edition of the game. 2nd 40K had all kinds of to-hit-modifiers (e.g. range, cover, weapon profiles, special rules of models and wargear, speed of target, etc.). So the veterans in 2nd 40K had BS5 which helped them to kill targets which liked to accumulate to-hit-modifiers from various sources. When 3rd 40K came around the corner such detailed gameplay went out of the window and the veterans were just written into the following codex for the sake of completion. They had nothing truly unique to offer with the exception of being expensive so nobody used them.

 

Back to the Intercessors in a vintage marine army. A marine with a bolt rifle (+3pts./model) would certainly be a very good addition to the force as he can threaten opposing models from turn 1 in their own deployment zone. This could only be achieved by tacticals who were positioned directly at the front of the deployment zone and then their targets would also need to be directly opposite in order to be targeted by bolter fire as "no man´s land" had a width of 24´´. Furthermore we are talking here about a 40K environment and not 30K. So AP5 on a basic gun with a long range of 30´´ would be very neat against most opponents as not 90% of them would have access to a 3+ armour save. 

[Xenith]

 

So AP5 on a basic gun with a long range of 30´´ would be very neat against most opponents as not 90% of them would have access to a 3+ armour save. 

 

Again, the spread of codexes in third/fourth did not reflect the armies you faced on the table, which were dominated by power armour. The las-plas was so effective because >50% of the armies you faced would be marines of some form, and the plasma at least reduced them to a 5+ cover save. Even then, tactical squads were still a 'tax' (taxticals) and only taken to provide access to other good things. 

 

Agree that the bolt rifle intercessors would be a good addition to the edition, but I disagree with your earlier post saying that they will make tactcals obsolete, especially at 18ppm. At that, you can get 5 ints for 90, or a 5 man tac squad with plasma for the same. I think that's a meaningful choice, so nice one, actually! 

 

 

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

Here is Gav Thorpe talking about 3rd 40K:

 

 

 

[Noctus Cornix]

4th edition, my beloved. I still have all my codexes from back then. Some friends of mine and I still occasionally get a game in. 

[Antarius]

 

 

Again, the spread of codexes in third/fourth did not reflect the armies you faced on the table, which were dominated by power armour. The las-plas was so effective because >50% of the armies you faced would be marines of some form, and the plasma at least reduced them to a 5+ cover save. Even then, tactical squads were still a 'tax' (taxticals) and only taken to provide access to other good things. 

 

Agree that the bolt rifle intercessors would be a good addition to the edition, but I disagree with your earlier post saying that they will make tactcals obsolete, especially at 18ppm. At that, you can get 5 ints for 90, or a 5 man tac squad with plasma for the same. I think that's a meaningful choice, so nice one, actually! 

 

 

My usual 4th ed. army was, (IIRC) 4-5 tactical squads, 2 assault squads and some devastators. It actually worked out pretty well, because the sheer amount of Marines meant I usually didn't lose by much when I lost, because people didn't have time to chew through them all - and on the flipside, when I won, I usually didn't win by much, so all in all it worked out to a lot of fun and not too one-sided games.

[calgar101]

Sounds similar to what I based my army around, a large body of troops. Some times I'd take 1 less Tact squad and Assault squad and put in a predator and 5 man Terminator squad or dreadnought. 

[Antarius]

 

Sounds similar to what I based my army around, a large body of troops. Some times I'd take 1 less Tact squad and Assault squad and put in a predator and 5 man Terminator squad or dreadnought. 

Ah yes, terminators! One of the things I’ve actually really liked about the last couple of editions have been their willingness to make terminators feel less fragile. Anyone got any ideas for how to beef them up a bit in 4th, without unbalancing things too much?

[calgar101]

 

Ah yes, terminators! One of the things I’ve actually really liked about the last couple of editions have been their willingness to make terminators feel less fragile. Anyone got any ideas for how to beef them up a bit in 4th, without unbalancing things too much?

 

Instantly I thought give them 2 wounds but I'm not clued up enough to say would that be balanced? 

[Beta galactosidase]

The forum has had a few 20 page threads on which stat is better to boost on terminators, but they are purged from the forum due to age.  Instead you could read these from dakkadakka 1 2 but I discourage it.  Seriously, decide not to think about it.

 

One way to use Terminators is to play the excellent Salamanders army list from codex:armageddon.  For the most part this is playing space marines on the expert difficulty setting, but the discount on their Terminators mean you can take 10 or 15 of them in a normal army.

 

When it comes to houseruling things, Xenith described how troop units in general are a tax, and Deus Ex Machina described how veteran stats don't help very much on old style veterans.  If you were going to houserule something, it should be to "fix" those things, and then the problems with Terminators would go away.

[calgar101]

It is a bit of a minefield to change someone on one unit, even 1 simple stat change may slew things. I read that Dakka briefly...

I think an extra wound isn't the way forward, as Ap1 and Ap2 weapons would still hurt them easy. Terminator armour is supposed to make you almost unstoppable, I thought about making their 2+sv invulnerable so nothing hurts them. Again you run into balance issues then... I think just dropping their points a little bit ultimately is the least head ache way.

[Cactus]

In my experience playing Dark Angels in 3rd to 6th edition terminators were too vulnerable to volume of fire. Making them cheaper would help but it hardly fits the fantasy. I would give them +1 toughness. S3 hits will wound 50% less often and S4 33% less. They'll still get tarpitted by fearless infantry that they can't kill quickly enough but they'll participate in the game for longer.

 

I second the recommendation to use 3rd edition's Codex Battlezone Cityfight by Andy Chambers, Pete Haines and Jervis Johnson. Those missions and rules were some of the most fun I've had playing 40k. 4th edition's Cities of Death had a cooler title but lost some of the magic. By the way, my copy of CBC has a printed FAQ tucked inside that I think is intended to cover discrepancies arrising from the move to 4th edition. If anybody's interested I can scan and upload it.

 

 

[Antarius]

Yeah, the big problem with terminators tended to be that the best way to deal with them was often just throwing lots of small arms fire at them, which sort of goes against the idea of what terminator armour is. +1T would certainly alleviate that a bit, but it'll be interesting to see what it does to the balance (although I'm honestly not that bothered by balance, as I'm not going to be playing against randos or take lots of the same unit, outside of pre-planned scenarios).

I'd love to see that FAQ, if it's no bother.

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

In regards to the prevalence of power armour forces in 3rd/4th:

I only played on a regular basis against two friends during that time period. All of us had multiple 40K armies. So there was no shortage to play against something else. In addition there wasn´t a widespread pick-up game environment present at that time period at local hobby shops in my home town in Germany. This meant people would play against friends and not strangers.

 

 

In regards to the short lifespan of Terminators:

Here are a few suggestions:

 

1. Never teleport them onto the battlefield unless you play a VERY large battle in which their absence won´t cripple your plan. Bad reserve rolls will always screw you before even an opponent will have a chance to shoot them.

 

2. A 5-man terminator unit is a target. So take larger squads to weather incoming fire or even take multiple, larger squads. You could put eight in a Crusader LR and ten on foot.

 

3. If you only use a single squad of terminators then make sure that there is another squad nearby which has also large potential to cause damage. This way the opponent may be swayed to divide his firepower upon multiple targets.

 

4. Differentiate melee power weapons in 3rd/4th 40K thus giving the majority of them AP3 like in HH 2.0. Nerf plasma guns by giving them the "Breaching" trait which only gives them AP2 when rolling a wound score of 4+. Otherwise plasma guns have only AP4. Nerf all plasma gun equivalents of xenos factions in the same way.

[calgar101]

When I first started as an 8 year old, almost everyone at my club had a Space Marine army of some sort but mostly used Xenos or Guard. For a long time me and 3 friends out of 40 of us were the only 'full time' Marine players.

 

Your 4th suggestion is a really good one I'd say for increasing Terminator survival.

[Valkyrion]

You could let terminators also take their invulnerable save against weapons of S4 or lower, almost like a 5+ Feel No Pain.

The volume of fire required to take them down becomes more 'realistic', but not impossible, and requires your opponent to level tank busting weaponry at them which is kinda the point.

 

 

 

[calgar101]

 

You could let terminators also take their invulnerable save against weapons of S4 or lower, almost like a 5+ Feel No Pain.

The volume of fire required to take them down becomes more 'realistic', but not impossible, and requires your opponent to level tank busting weaponry at them which is kinda the point.

 

 

 

That is also quite a good idea.

A gripe of mine for Terminators is  that their armour is supposed to be one of the best to be produced, an upgrade to the suits used by engineers in star ship engines and gives protection against plasma etc.

 

I know weaponised plasma might be different but I always thought TDA should be proof against Ap2.

Then we start to get muddled and balance issues etc etc.

[Evil Eye]

Re: Terminators, one thing that could maybe help is giving them a "1+" save ala Fantasy; functionally a 2+ save but it can only be ignored by AP1 weapons (and power weapons/monstrous creatures of course).

[The_Worker]

4th Edition is the edition I played the most of, almost all of it with an Imperial Guard army I did up as traitors - the Karaboudjani XV Kataphraktoi. I also had a Deathwing army I used a lot, too.

I still think it is the best version of 40K, and the 3rd edition Codexes and books like Codex: Cityfight and Codex: Eye of Terror not only work seamlessly with 4th, but remain to this day excellent pieces of hobbying inspiration.

With regards to Terminators, I really don't think they're as weak as people are claiming. I still remember the experience of putting the firepower of almost my entire Guard army into a squad of Assault Terminators and a Terminator Chaplain (much of it within Rapid Fire range of many lasguns) and dealing absolutely no damage at all. Either I failed to hit, failed to wound, or had my wounds saved. And I was re-rolling 1s to hit.

The period also saw the emergence of the incredible Imperial Armour series of hardback books - I regret having to part with mine to pay bills.