/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>26432776
What?
The Wraithknight?
I don't see why at all.

Oh look, a dead horse.

>>26432776
the wraith knights hands are too small. Or are they?

No matter, he looks cool

>>26432825
ill grab my whoopin stick

>>26432841
Maybe they need small hands for daintily picking up new spirit stones in their trips to the Eye of Terror.

>>26432776
>getting worse

Were you playing during 4th and 5th edition? The game is still hilariously flawed but better.

>>26432776
Thats not how you spell better, anon

>>26432871
Not OP, but 6th edition is a laughable pile of piss by any measure of game design. Not that 4th or 5th were good, but 6th is fuckawful.

Also, I think OP is probably talking about the aesthetics, not the rules, but most of /tg/'s 40k crowd came in off the video games and doesn't actually know jack shit about old 40k.

>>26432851
I'll grab my dead horse.

>>26433043
And those who claim to know jack shit about old 40k generally believe that it was all "Le wacky british humor and parody of edgy grimdark shit", despite it being one of the first grimdark game settings.
Basically they think it was Mr Culexus' comics in the 80s.

>>26433089
It is and it isn't. 1st edition had a bunch of different styles, it had the historicals crowd at GW coming in with that angle and lots of historical reference and solid worldbuilding, and it had the british humor of the time, and generally it had a lot of nervous laughter because everyone was pretty sure it wasn't going to sell at all.

And, really, 1st edition's dark parts are darker than any of the editions since.

They consolidated style in second edition and since then it hasn't been any more humorous than other sci-fi settings. Every setting has its in jokes, but for some reason with 40k that's enough to say "omg guys so parody".

So how much BIGGER can we get?

>>26433147
They've probably peaked with the Wraithknight. At least, until the Titan Titan is announced.

>>26433138
Well it may have had its share of humor and silly designs, I'm not denying that, but it sure as hell wasn't anywhere near Mr Culexus' comics.

>>26433193
I'm agreeing with you, bro. That shit gets way overemphasized.

>>26433043

You're making a lot of assumptions about what other people believe and feel. Let's talk about what you believe and feel.

Give specific examples of how 6th edition is worse than 5th so we can see where you're coming from, and if we agree with you or not.

>>26433258
It introduces overcomplicated procedures for little reward in terms of what players can choose to do. It still doesn't have any real reactive fire system, which is a staple of basically the entire modern and future wargame genre.

It still has standard movement rates, making units that need to be tactically distinguished by their rate of speed rely on rules exceptions. It adds so many more rules exceptions than any other edition ever, many of which are variant mechanics representing things that are supposed to be taken into account by the standard profile.

It goes on. The tactical options it provides the player are fewer than almost any other shooting wargame on the market. The introduction of more random effects is remarkably un-fun.

If they were willing to toss out the old codexes and make real changes to the system, it might have been worthwhile, but as long as they stick to backwards compatibility 40k is going to keep being increasingly baroque versions of 3rd edition.

>>26433368

They have introduced reactive fire in 6th edition, though I agree there is still a bit missing. Specifically I like the Kill Zone overwatch rule where a unit can set up a zone of fire that anyone entering automatically triggers a shooting attack against them. I like the idea of setting up a machine gun and daring anyone to walk in front of it.

I'm not sure I follow you about standard movement rates and needing exceptions.

>units that need to be tactically distinguished by their rate of speed rely on rules exceptions

A guy on a motorcycle moves according to the Bike movement rules, which is a basic rule from the main rulebook, and doesn't need an exception from that basic movement rule to be tactically distinguished. He's very different from a standard infantryman. If anything there may be too many basic movement types, but I don't see what you mean by a need for exceptions. The codexes do have exceptions here and there, like the Dark Angels Deathwing Assault, but these are based on an army's style or theme rather than a unit type's style or theme.

>>26434055
>They have introduced reactive fire in 6th edition, though I agree there is still a bit missing.
Overwatch as it exists in 6th edition is hardly a tactical option. It provides you the ability to react to a specific action on your opponent's terms. Not much of a choice. It will always be clear when it is advantageous and when it isn't, so it's more or less compulsory.

>A guy on a motorcycle moves according to the Bike movement rules, which is a basic rule from the main rulebook, and doesn't need an exception from that basic movement rule to be tactically distinguished. He's very different from a standard infantryman.
He's barely different from a standard infantryman at all except that he takes a couple more pages to explain and moves faster.

>If anything there may be too many basic movement types, but I don't see what you mean by a need for exceptions.
These types *are* exceptions. You can just have an M stat and cover pretty much all of them with a uniform movement mechanic. At that point the rules for Jump infantry simply become "Jump infantry can move over obstacles without penalty," the rules for bikes become "bikers generally have +1T, included in their profiles," and so on. You don't need Fleet or Runing or any of that shit.

>>26434425
>Overwatch as it exists in 6th edition is hardly a tactical option. It provides you the ability to react to a specific action on your opponent's terms. Not much of a choice. It will always be clear when it is advantageous and when it isn't, so it's more or less compulsory.

(Plus, it isn't actually shooting, it's an abstract representation of shooting that doesn't let you deal with anything at range. It won't hinder your opponent's maneuver in any way, which is what a reactive shooting system ought to do, because it is always an option and your opponent can always be prepared to take it into account.)

>>26434456
>wont hinder his maneuver
Charge distance can be negated through overwatch, especially when using lightly armoured troops. I agree about the move stat and having another form of reactive fire, maybe like XCOM with a lower accuracy or something to avoid tenches: the wargame from happening.

>>26434456
>It won't hinder your opponent's maneuver in any way

Ive seen it cause a charge to fail more than once

Wraithknight
>monstrous creature
Transcendent Ctan
>gargantuan creature

>>26432776
>tfw 40k hate threads are getting worse and worse every year and there is nothing to stop it

Must you keep repeating threads? At least change up the OP.

>>26434554
Lord of Battle
>walker

>>26434536
>>26434541
Your opponent is aware of the risk at all times. It's not something that you have to make sacrifices to set up, like 2nd edition's overwatch; it's not going to disrupt plans more than any other damage, that is, it works or doesn't according to dicebuckets rather than through tactics.

>>26434536
>I agree about the move stat and having another form of reactive fire, maybe like XCOM with a lower accuracy or something to avoid tenches: the wargame from happening.
Another thing I would have mentioned but I was really trying to keep with discussing differences between 5th and 6th rather than general 40k deficiencies (I know I rambled onto some of those anyways): 40k needs some fucking modifiers. The situation should affect things more than it does. Cover and AP are shitty ways of handling the effects they represent.

>>26434425
>except that he takes a couple more pages to explain and moves faster.

... which is the point.

>You can just have an M stat and cover pretty much all of them with a uniform movement mechanic

Yeah, and I think 40k would generally be improved with it. It doesn't mean that there's not already a huge difference between unit types based on movement, the abstraction just limits the total movement stats a bit more than is necessary.

>You don't need Fleet or Runing or any of that shit.

Running gives you additional movement in exchange for firing (unless Eldar, of course), which is a tactical choice.

Fleet gives you *more reliable* charges without giving you greater (at least, greater maximal) charge range.

Both are quite useful in differentiating the abilities of models in the game, and would be useful even with a M statistic.

Realistically, though, I think the main reason they haven't gone back to a M statistic is that if it existed, there really wouldn't be *that* much variation in it as to preserve balance, as movement is, fundamentally, one of the most powerful and most difficult to balance abilities.

That said, the only *real* advantage to having several rules bound together as such -- as in "bike" vs "M12 + treat difficult terrain as dangerous but never slowed + Relentless + Jink + Hammer of Wrath + etc" -- is in regard to version changes or universal FAQs, neither of which happen enough to matter.

Nostalgia is one hell of an emotion.

>>26434628

Tau at least have some pretty potent Overwatch options that require setup.

Otherwise, you can still put your flamer-equipped squads forward to absorb the first charge.

Yes, change is inherently bad. As devoted fans we must rage at any sort of change.

>>26433043
> Not that 4th or 5th were good, but 6th is fuckawful.
>Everything is shit but i play anyway
Seriously fuck off and stop playing if you don't like it, this isnt /v/ or /tv/, we don't need people to come and bitch endlessly about something they enjoy but can't accept. Just stop.

>>26435297

Three of the five models on the right are from 2nd ed...

>>26435349
Sorry where does it say this thread is only about 1st ed?

>>26435381
> Stern
*signs Aquila*

That comic is going to be my Christmas present to myself.

>>26435349
Pretty sure they're all at least from third. The Greater Daemons were 3rd ed.

>>26435381

I'm just pointing out that for a picture with the caption "I, for one, don't miss the old times" and a post which, paired with that image, is obviously derogatory of older editions (and snarkily counter to the OP post) it's a tad ironic that 60% of the examples are from the second oldest edition.

>>26435429

Nah man, those were definitely out in 2nd. They all got minor re-sculpts in 3rd or 4th or something, new heads etc. But the actual models were 2nd ed.

>>26435297
The old Keeper of Secrets looks like it's holding a really floppy dildo.

Biggest tragedy?? Get it??? Because the wraithknight is huge????

>>26435530
>>26435429
>>26435349
>>26435297
Ghazskull from 2nd ed
Rogue trader dreadnought
2nd ed Epic scale Lord of Change
2nd ed Epic scale Keeper of Secrets
Rogue trader Metal Marine Jetbike

>>26435570
>Ghazskull from 2nd ed

No freaking way. Really? His model is FUCKING AMAZING. Amazing sculpt, amazing proportions, amazing paintjob. Kudos, old school 'Eavy Metal team.

>>26435570
>three of the five models on the right
>on the right
>THE RIGHT

>>26432776
The game isn't changing. It's you growing up and realizing how much shit Warhammer has always been.

I always felt that the wraithknight aesthetic was very un-eldar

Its not like it's ugly, after all thats subjective, but it just doesnt seem very eldar.

I feel that the head should be bigger, and the helmet shouldnt resemble a cockpit instead of a faceplate, the torso smaller, the crotchplate replaced with a flowing banner, the hands replaced with prosthetic weapon limbs

Personally, as the editions progress I like most of the new rules. There is definitely a need for refinement with new ideas (flyers this edition, not to mention placing fortifications BEFORE terrain --so many veteran commanders setting up AA guns directly in front of buildings blocking LoS these days apparently--) since the codices update so slowly, but for the most part I think they're on the right track (charging, close combat, moral/outnumbered of last editions compared to now).
On the other hand, for me, the missions keep getting worse and worse. My game store has started to almost always use homebrewed missions for tournaments rather than the rulebook's stock. Sure, victory points weren't perfect, but I can't stand for a killing 19 of a 20 man squad counting for nothing. And don't even get me started about the Scourging or the stupid shit people are pulling with fortifications.

>>26432776
>says 40k getting worse and worse
>posts perfectly acceptable model
At least use the DJ speeder or something.

>>26436128
You have that completely backwards.

>>26436198
>tfw I'm the only one that likes the DA speeder

The giant plasma cannons look like Riptide wings.

>>26436212

I never played that new Bioshock Mugen game but why does that Elizabeth chick sometimes have a ponytail and sometimes have a weird black haircut?

>>26436267
she changes clothes and hairstyle at a point in the game.

>>26436212
The game is changing, but OP's failing to grow up?

>>26433368
Welcome to EVERY edition of 40k. I started playing in third (god that makes me feel old as shit) and played into 4th. 4th was def better than 3rd

>>26433368
>It still has standard movement rates, making units that need to be tactically distinguished by their rate of speed rely on rules exceptions. It adds so many more rules exceptions than any other edition ever, many of which are variant mechanics representing things that are supposed to be taken into account by the standard profile.

You complain that unique stats are being represented as rules and then complain about unique rules that should be represented as stats in the same line?

>>26433043
>pile of piss
>Liquid
>Pile
I question your intelligence.

>>26437146

Shutup you sack of diarrhea.

>>26434425

>He's barely different from a standard infantryman at all except that he takes a couple more pages to explain and moves faster.

What? I'm sorry, but no. You're making it seem more complex than it really is. And why should an infantryman who gets on a motorcycle NOT be "barely different from an infantryman at all except he goes faster" ? That's what he is. He's a man who gets on a device that makes him go faster, but otherwise he's just a man. The special rules for bikes represent what bikes are and do fairly well, I think.

>These types *are* exceptions. You can just have an M stat and cover pretty much all of them with a uniform movement mechanic.

I don't know what you're on about here. No, they are not exceptions to a non-existent basic type, they are multiple basic types according to what they are describing. A man and a tank having the same movement mechanic is silly, let alone a man and a jet plane having the same basic movement mechanic.

>At that point the rules for Jump infantry simply become "Jump infantry can move over obstacles without penalty,"

You complain about the lack of tactical options implied by a special unit, and then bitch about a rule that gives a special unit tactical options and then want to simplify it? In 5th, jump troops were basically foot troops who could walk further and ignore intervening terrain. In 6th jump troops can choose when to activate their packs in order to get the most situational advantage out of them.

I'm beginning to think you're a twat.

>>26435297
I actually like both orks.

>>26437068
Anon's point seems consistent to me. Wants movement rates and other mechanics (not sure which, mind) to be covered by the standard stat profile instead of having special rules.

>>26437228
Ya see? Diarrhea doesn't come in sacks... perhaps you have put diarrhea in sacks to observe what they are like and decided I am a particularly loud one... but that is terribly unhygienic.

>>26438324
I think anon's just saying that if units went back to having an M stat, you could use that instead of referring to their unit type for the move value. It's not a very worthwhile point, though, because there are other special rules for jetpacks, jump-packs etc that need to be included anyway.

The real value of a move stat would be making units of the same type move at different speeds (Eldar infantry move 8", Termis go 4" or whatever). Don't know if that's desirable, though- I'm fine without it.

So in a few years time 40k will be a skirmish game between giant robots, right?

>>26440183
They already did that with Epic- Adeptus Titanicus. Mind you, I can totally see them going there again with worse rules (i.e. 40k's rules).

>>26440183

The big centerpiece models are just a phase, it's something the designers at GW having been wanting to do since forever and they finally have the technology to do it.

Not to mention the whole thing is blown out of proportion by /tg/, of the last six 40k releases only Tau and Eldar have received big showcasey models. Space Marines won't be joining them either as their new units are going to be two AA tanks and two variations of a unit bigger than a Terminator and smaller than a Dreadnought.

>>26435323
>Everything is shit but i play anyway

Yeah nope. I play second edition and it looks like I'll be sticking with that if 6th edition so far is any indication.

>>26442030
Good for you.

>>26442943
Aint it tho

>>26435297
I actually prefer the older ork

>>26432863
so how do they do that? the codexes say each mission they carry enough for three centuries and it would seem a craftworld will at least have a few thousand new borns a year

do they have giant sacks?

Old warhams: Lets make a game system because it's fun, then we will sell minis so we can make money.
New warhams: Lets sell minis

>>26445787
>New warhams:Tinker with old ruleset to make the game better, Lets sell minis

>>26445787

I see nothing wrong with this. No company has kept the fun since becoming successful. Activision-Blizzard is the biggest example of this.

>>26445654

>a few thousand new borns a year

Doesn't it take Eldar at least or close to a year to conceive?

>>26445831
New warhams: Fiddle with the rules so you have to buy a new overpriced hardcover book. Putting the rules out for free wouldn't make us money.

>>26446002

Making money is usually the point of a business.

>>26435381
OK time to find this comic. I am genuinely curious as to how a Sister of Battle ended up in the Arena

>>26446028
Lowering the prices of the miniatures down to reasonable levels, then putting out a condensed "learn to play" rule set for free would help them sell through the 7 million pounds of product they have sitting in warehouses unsold.
How is having that much product in warehouses a good strategy?

>>26446094

Yeah, you know how to run a business better than GW. They're posting record profits every quarter so I don't see why they have any incentive to stop being Jews until they stop making money.

>>26446094
>Lowering the prices of the miniatures down to reasonable levels

All major competitors in the sci-fi and fantasy 28mm heroic franchise have more expensive prices for similar quality models. Mantic is the sole exception and their quality has dropped drastically recently. All other cheap miniatures are tiny historicals.

How can you lower the prices down to a "reasonable" level when they have one of the lowest cost per miniature in the market?

>>26446137
Yes, if you downsize your company faster than you are bleeding customers you make a profit.

>>26446094

Here's the thing though, people are still buying models at the current prices and GW is making a profit. There is also the fact that wargames is niche hobby, if GW were to cut prices but still sell about the same amount they were before than they would lose money.

GW doesn't put rules out for free because they don't have to due to the brand, Infinity, Malifaux, Warmahordes, etc all offer their rules for free because they need all the help they can get to compete with GW.

>>26446167

GW actually opened some stores after closing down a bunch, so they aren't even downsizing faster than their sales loss.

I didn't expect you to have any idea of what you were talking about though because all you know is "GW BAD HERFDERF"

>>26446180
this.

>>26446094
>How is having that much product in warehouses a good strategy
... Man companies really are stupid to keep their product in warehouses until it is needed at stores.

>>26435297

when somebody finally make a decent version of this picture to prevent trolls from conjuring up a shitstorm everytime this is posted?

>>26446045
My lord, you have risen from the Golden Throne!

>>26446137

That isn't true. They have changed their metrics substantially used to measure profits to disguise the self-destructive practises at the stakeholder level. Their current practises are designed to inflate share prices because that is what the executive payouts are based on, and because Jack Kirby has a large investment in the company he profits if he inflates them to breaking point before selling. He also jacks up dividends to make a personal profit, and because investors never investigate the metrics behind quarterly statements, they see unusually high dividends and don't question further.

Games workshop at the executive level is on a path to destruction more certain than their actual business practises could hope to achieve, and the only reason it is not wider news is because they are too small a company for the real market figures to sit up and pay attention. If this happened to, say, Alliance/Boots, UK regulatory officials would be flipping out.

I get that you want people to do their due diligence before criticising. That's a fair desire. But you need to be willing to do so yourself. Fucking with metrics is so rife in the markets simply because it is very effective and so very easy to get away with.

>>26446307

See the thing is people can only read "GW is crashing/ going to sell, I scryed it in my bowl of Alphabet soup" before they start tuning it out.

Not to mention most traditional gamers have no idea what they talking about when it comes to business, which is why when they get the idea to open up their ideal game shop they usually fail.

>implying 40k wasn't always shit

>>26446242

hope this works

>>26446805

GW clearly outdid themselves with the Space Marine Bike redesign.

>>26446805
Those bikes always make me think of Duplo bikes. It's the giant tyres.

>>26435297

Screw you, the old traitor marines were fun as fuck

>>26446805
Needs a complete blank spot for warlocks and farseers on jetbikes.

>>26446981
Yeah, Chaos Marines have gone downhill in my opinion. The old metal Khorne ones were also baller.

Guys. So fucking what. Yeah 6th may not be as good as the editions before. Yeah, GW is a bag of dicks. It's a fucking game people. I still shell out my cash to buy paint and models. I STILL go to tournaments, and I still play with my friends on the weekends. It gives me yet another reason to pull out the dice and crack open a beer and hang out with my friends. It's not the stock market. It's not the economy. It's not the reason your mother loves you. It's a game. One where you paint pieces of plastic so you can imagine said little pieces of plastic shoot at each other. So what if it gets worse. So what if your army keeps getting nerfed. Man the fuck up and roll with it.

>>26447061
>It's not the reason your mother loves you.

My mum told me if i don't bring home a Golden Demon this year there'll be no christmas ;_;

>>26447002
Am I the only one who thinks this is a way better paint scheme then what Word Bearers have got now? It's so distinctive, new ones just, red.

>>26446854

Rolled 4

>>26447214

I get what you are trying to say, but those are Forgeworld.

>>26436548
No, he's getting younger and Warhammer has never been shit.

>>26447267

The design is from Epic.

As a nid player I kinda fear the next codex. With Tau and Eldar getting ridiculously huge creatures, what finecast horrors will await us?
I can already see GWs ads for the dominatrix kit... 50 POUNDS OF BIRTHTUBES AND ASS!!

>>26447541

You already have Trygon. I don't think any plastic kit will be bigger than that for Tyranids because you'd be in superheavy size. Yeah Eldar got Wraithknight but their next biggest thing wasn't very big before that.

>>26447569
The line between monstrous and gargantuan creatures seems to have blurred somewhat when it comes to size. The Trygon was gargantuan before being made plastic and put in the 5th edition codex, and the Tyrannofex and Tervigon look about as big as the gargantuan Hierodule. On the other hand the Transcendent C'tan is gargantuan despite being the same size as the Deceiver and Nightbringer, which aren't really that huge to begin with.

>>26447614
T-C'tan is made outta like 12 to 100s C'tan. It's reasonable to assume that T-C'tan can change size.

Awaiting the next edition where they reduce the points cost of every unit so you need more models to make up the same amount of points.

>>26447569
I really hope so. I started playing when the 3rd edition crabfex was the biggest and meanest thing you could put on the table, and in comparison to the new monsters he´s tiny. And I´m sure kiddies would love to field their giant bugdinosaur toy with the usual BUY NOW-tardstrength of the recent codices...

>>26447666

I prefer smaller monsters myself. 25mm Avatars and Daemon Princes are amazing.

>>26447686
>25mm Avatars

Yes, it makes it much easier to envisage my spiritual liege killing one.

>>26446280
Nope just got the internet working. Still sitting here, after 10,000 years of muscular atrophy

>>26447757

If you actually use Calgar on the table you deserve to have every positive thing Matt Ward has written about Ultramarines come true for you.

>>26447933
I don't actually play Space Marines. But Calgar is still my spiritual liege.

And he is yours too.

>>26447945

>>26448110
I, for one, welcome our Spiritual Liege

3rd > 2nd > 6th > RT > 5th > 4th

6th is "ok" from a rules and aesthetics standpoint.
5th was where the jumping the shark with bigger and shittier models started.
3rd is like 4th and 5th. Only good.
2nd is a skirmish game. Attempting to play "massive battles" is a suck-ass experience, but for skirmishes it's brilliant.
RT is also a skirmish game.It's just not as polished as second.

>>26447632
Or that the difference is actually based on power level rather than physical size.

Still don't know why it wasn't a flying gargantuan creature in all honesty. Shit would be a million times more scary.

I for one, am sick as shit at how big these models are getting. It's rediculius. I want to play a miniatures game, not GI Joe with rules. Seriously, some of this shit is way way way too big for even a 4x6 table.

And the flyers are stupid. Stupid and too big.

>>26448481
Yeah, remember back in the day when Demolisher Cannons would make people shit themselves?

I think that wraithknight is really cool looking.
As a figurine, not a model.

>>26432776
>ITT opinions

>>26448225
2nd Ed
>Deathwing Terminators with 1+ on 2D6 armour save
>IG players who could field off the board artillery pieces
>1,500 point game takes three hours
>Carnifex with about 40,000 wounds
>Models look like something tony hart could have bashed together in 20 mins

Face it 2nd edition was a terrible terrible game where even the mere mention of balance was spat at with vile hatred. Take of those Rose tinted goggles man...
but oh how I miss it

>>26448541
I am legitimately upset that I never got to play the wonder that was 2nd edition.

>>26434425
>He's barely different from a standard infantryman at all except that he takes a couple more pages to explain and moves faster.

so now you have to right out lie to have a point, got it.

>>26435349
3rd ed you mean

>>26435570
dont know if trolling or actually this retarded

>>26448525
I wonder what an opinionless thread look like...

>>26448646
I'd imagine the numbers 404 would be involved.

>>26448646

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ

>>26448628

technically the greater Deamons were still 40k 2nd edition, they were released 1997/1998 iirc

>>26435381
What's the name of this comic?

>>26448749
Deamonifuge.

>>26448541

40k and all other GW games ahave always been first and foremost about the models, the rules are just a mere afterthought. Arguing about which edition is superior and how bad the latest codex is that the writers shat out is as asinine as it gets.

Forge world for comparisons sake.

>>26446307
>metrics substantially used to measure profits to disguise the self-destructive practises at the stakeholder level
sauce please. Because right now, its just inane rambling on a very vague level.

>>26448771
That biker.
Sometimes forgeworld has a gem it seems.

>>26447933
I run him in a ten man honour guard squad. With two more as support. No I wont take a picture. I have 30 honour guardists. Im glad I managed to afford a potato to eat today.

>>26435297
>>26446805

A lot of people should take a look at Space crusade and heroquest. The gargoyle/khorne daemon in heroquest was by far better than most of the demons today.... the plastic chaos marines of space crusade had a LOT more details than most of the minis today too.

>>26448826

Forgeworld has been putting out better shit than GW for years.

>>26448837
The Chaos Marines from Space Crusade were good for the time, but to say that they have more detail than todays models is a bit far-fetched

>>26448837

At the left, the old space crusader/Rogue trader one with dat glorious pauldrons and all the details they could put in it.

>>26448728
3rd edition came out in1998

>>26448963

That's the biggest gripe i have with CSM, that they are mostly SM with some extra Horns,Arrows and Spikes. The old Traitor Marines really had a distinct look and were oozing with character.

>>26448492

Indeed

>>26448982

The Deamons came out with the WHFB Realms of Chaos box 5th Edition, a couple of months before 40k 3rd edition.

>>26448998
>>26448963

Back in the day, Eldar minis were designed to be "specialist armor". Including the avatar, who was the same height as a captain of the guardians.

but yeah, people pretty much go with the worst of the worst of the old era and just says that back in the day minis were awful.

>>26448963
the one on the right is an old model too (hence why it still has the mono pose and slotta base).

Compare the Space Crusade mini with one of the Dark Vengeance CSM

>>26448564

Go buy the rule book on eBay bud. Apparently there is a devout following of second edition among some groups

>>26446045
he got kidnapped by an eldar (harlequin?) and declared heretic by her ordo

>>26448998
Remember when GW encouraged players to get creative?

>>26449059
>>26448998

DV Chosen are a step in the right direction, let's hope they revamp regular CSM in a similar matter.

>>26432776
> Dat feel when you started in 4th and everything is getting better and better.

>>26449106
>dat feel when you started at the end of 2nd and everything is finally getting better after 2 editions of hell.

>>26449064
Unfortunately 40k only seems to be played in GW stores so I doubt I'd get away with that.

>>26449059

wanna compare a mini made for milton bradley as a subsidiary with cheap plastics and crippled molds in the 80´s with one from dark vengeance? sure.

i´d say that the old is not that far in quality and details even if it was done in a precarious way.

>>26449119
>Dat feel when you started with RT and have seen fashions come and go

hardback codices with lots of fluff are back
models still vary from unbelievably derpy to super cool (by my own aesthetic, ymmv)

I just hope they don't bring back the god-awful bright blue and red colour schemes *for every faction* from 2nd ed

>>26449133
Actually I always assumed the money from Milton Bradley is part of the reason the HeroQuest/Space Crusade minis were of such a high standard (for the time).
Those minis and the games they came with were what got me into warhammer in the first place, i simply disputed the anon's claim that they had more detail than the modern minis

>>26449182
I'm assumung the harback codices were a RT thing?

If I'm being honest, I prefer the artwork from the earlier editions.

>>26449254
hey do the modern chaplains strip the flesh off there heads or is it just a mask or something

>>26449287
Everything I've read makes it out to be a specialised version of the marines helmet.

>>26449287

It's is a mask.

>>26449311
>>26449306
awww

>>26432776

Star Wars has a massive following even now and was imprinted on the world, especially America, as a cultural phenomenon. Which has been getting steadily worse since the EU was conceived. Its diminishing and those god awful prequels has a far greater impact than your grimdark Briton space opera elfgames that no one cares about.

But me, I've always been more of a Transformers fan.

>>26449352
>grimdark Briton space opera elfgames that no one cares about.
The amount of 40k related posts on /tg/ proves you wrong, sir.

>>26448826
Both the biker and the contemptor dread are based on Epic scale models from about 1994ish. I like that FW do that, but it makes me saaaaad about the loss of Epic.

>>26449368

The traffic on /tg/ is laughable compared to the main boards on here. You guys are tiny and niche, a drop in the bucket, compared to the amount of people who haven't even watched a Star Wars movie but can still recognize its opening theme or characters like Darth Vader. This is something that has been ingrained in people's minds since since its late 70's release. That's whole generations of people aware of its existence.

Most people have no fucking clue what Warhammer is. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who hasn't heard of Star Wars, unless they live in a third world shithole.. and even then they've probably heard of or seen some bootleg version of it.

>>26432776

What's the problem? New models of large walkers, looks neat.

>>26449533
My four-year old nephew does the most adorable Darth Vader impression.

>>26449533
So, let me guess, you're mad that no one is posting about Fantasy Flights shitty Star Wars RPG?

>>26449554

Yeah, they are pretty cool. Again, GW fucked up by giving it bad angles on the photography. Face to face it looks amazing. Same with the Riptide and the last couple of big show piece models they've produced.

Personally, I like the ones for Warhammer Fantasy a lot more.

>>26449588
Wut. Not the same anon, but that anon is clearly taking issue with 'biggest geek tragedy of the decade' when 40k is, globally, nowhere near as important as Star Wars.

>>26449591
I like the Riptide, but I feel like the Wraithknight is just a Wraithlord in the employ of Rita Repulsa

>>26449588

I didn't even know they have a Star Wars RPG.

And no, I'm pointing out that you are delusional if you think Warhammer or any other wargame has any broad recognition. Even more so for using /tg/ as an example; one of the slowest moving boards talks a lot about the monopolized juggernaut that dominates its sphere. Yeah, great example there, champ.

4chan itself is painfully small and niche compared to the populations driving sites like Facebook, or yes, Reddit and Tumblr.

>>26449626
Thing is, I remember growing up when video games were geeky. Now everyone's playing games on the latest PlayboxU it's no longer a geek thing.

Same thing applies with Star Wars.

>>26449664

The difference is Star Wars never had that 'slow growing movement into acceptance by the wider casual audience'. It EXPLODED onto the scene with its first movie, because no one was expecting anything like it. Tons of 'normal' people unaffiliated with science fiction or fiction period drove in flocks to go see A New Hope when it was first released. We're talking about lines to the theatre that stretched for city block after city block. People standing for several hours just to get a ticket. Shit was that ridiculous when it came out and it snowballed even harder with the following two sequels.

>>26449664
No, it's not a geek thing to play video games. It's now a geek thing to play the GOOD video games. Playing Candy Crush, Farmville, or Call of Duty isn't a geek thing to do. Playing Minecraft, or replaying Half Life 2, or reinstalling Vampire:Bloodlines, FF6/FF7, Dwarf-Fortress, an NES/Genesis/SNES/Playstation/Gamecube emulator, or any other number of classically awesome games, is certainly a geek thing.

And being a geek, doesn't carry with it the negative connotations of being a 'nerd' (lack of social skills), or 'dork' (lack of anything).

>>26449720
>Tons of 'normal' people unaffiliated with science fiction or fiction period drove in flocks to go see A New Hope when it was first released

Not until it started to catch on. When A New Hope first hit theaters, not many people knew what was going on. There had been a lot of really shitty sci-fi movies prior to that, and most all flopped due to bad acting, even worse budgets, and terrible plot. A New Hope was different. First the small groups of Sci-Fi fans saw it and loved it. Then the people they informed that it was good went and saw it... and it's popularity exploded quite quickly within weeks.

GW has never really put any effort into the 'game'. The Figs and fluff are awesome and always have been, just as the game has always been rife with game breaking builds and idiot thinking. Back in the day (20+ yrs ago) there were several bootleg rules sets that fixed the rules, balanced lists and otherwise improved the game. GW supposedly sued some of those gamers to stop them. I bailed mid-late 90s when they weren't even proof reading their books (Anyone remember the Space Wolf Terminator Cyclone and Assault gun squad? I teleported into combat and wiped 3/4 of my first opponent on entry.). Still love the figs, but until there is a game to play them with, why?

>>26449664

Video games were, thanks to consoles and Nintendo branding them as a 'toy', typecasted as a child's plaything from the onset once they moved from the arcades to the living room.

Star Wars, on the other hand, was originally a trilogy of feature films. Films that are short (by comparison to a video game), easily digestable, and most importantly, visually captivating and evocative, which Star Wars had in spades.

They are complete opposites; one was designed as a time sink with a huge price tag (or a quarter muncher), the other is a cheap ticket of admission for ~2 hours of excitement and entertainment among a shared crowd of peers. Its obvious why Star Wars, at least the original trilogy, was enormous and branded so thoroughly into the mind set of the developed (Western) world, both through its medium which easily conveys the kind of sound and imagery its renowned for, and by 'striking while the iron's hot' during a time when there wasn't anything comparable and had no competition. There were no iconic, action-packed space opera fantasy epics with strong visuals in film at the time. It was a perfect storm and that's why the wider audience still remembers it so keenly even today.

>>26449811
Ok, I think I get what you're saying. But what you're saying implies that Star Wars being such a huge pop-culture phenomenon has never, truly, been a geek-thing.

>>26449772

Right, but that was a small time gap between obscurity into unheard of levels of popularity. By comparison to fantasy and scifi fiction, and table top games, that might as well be instantaneous. Even Dungeons and Dragons took years before it gained any recognition, and ironically most of that came from its demonization by religious nutjobs.

Yet still today, the greater casual audience doesn't know what the fuck D&D and would probably confuse it with Lord of the Rings.

>>26449853

Its not a geek thing because its easily recognized by a wider audience. You can recognize a popular Star Wars character (the main ones like Leia, Vader, Han, etc.) or its music, especially the opening theme or Imperial March, and not get blank stares from people or be derided for nerdery.

It IS a geek thing when you start talking about its novelizations, the EU, or even its video games like KOTOR. Anything deeper than surface level is 'geeky'. At the surface level, though, it is not due to wider brand recognition even if the people who recognize it don't really know anything about Star Wars beyond maybe watching one of two of the movies during their life time. A large majority of people who went to see the prequel movies did not go because they actually cared about Star Wars and its 'rich lore', but because it was a huge name even 20 years later. Cultural impetuous and brand name recognition drove them to see it. Despite them being utter garbage they still sold like hot cakes. That is the kind of weight it wields among the casual audience.

>>26449941
But we can both agree that the Star Wars brand itself is not a geek thing, right?

>>26449664
Ah, legit point there. I agree Star Wars is too big to count as geeky. Getting upset about the prequels might count, though.

>>26449956
No, it is still considered a 'geek' thing. Same with Star Trek, or Dr. Who. It's sci-fi, and sci-fi largely gets rolled into 'Geeky interests'. Which is fine. The thing that people get confused about is the idea that something being a 'geek' thing isn't bad. Geeks by definition are just enthusiasts or fans of a specific interest. They still have social skills (for the most part), and are still fairly normal people. Being a sci-fi or fantasy geek isn't demeaning.

Dork, or Nerd has a few negative connotations associated. Nerd ties in with being particularly knowledgeable and intelligent, but comes with the stereotypes of lack of social skills, etc. Generally speaking, being referred to a nerd is 1 part endearing (you're intelligent and knowledgeable), 1 part demeaning (you lack severely in social skills).

Dork on the other hand, is pure negative connotation. There is nothing endearing about a 'dork'. You know the guy who's obsessed with something (like Star Wars, Sailor Moon, Magic, 40k, Ponies, etc.)? Yeah, the 'THAT GUY' who doesn't shower, has no social skills whatsoever, and really isn't that intelligent? That's the 'Dork'.

>>26448837
I have hero quest and the most of the xpacs sorry thats just not true with any of the models, though the Skeletons and mummies look really nice.

>>26449956

Yes.

Its hard to be an obscure geek/nerd thing when everyone and their grandmother has heard of it and seen at least some of it.

>>26449941
>You can recognize a popular Star Wars character (the main ones like Leia, Vader, Han, etc.) or its music, especially the opening theme or Imperial March, and not get blank stares from people or be derided for nerdery.

Actually, you will if you suddenly use a yoda impersonation with no relevance to a conversation, or if you begin displaying entirely too much knowledge for the setting (i.e. the specifics on the different starfighters...).

Again though, Star Wars geekery isn't anything bad per say. It's on par with Star Trek geekery, or Dr. Who geekery. It's when you lack any interests outside of that topic, and cannot hold a decent conversation without resorting to that topic, is when you've got problems.

>>26450045
Thing is, Star Wars doesn't get flung in with "Geeky Interests" as harshly as Star Trek or Dr. Who. Hell, people who have never seen a Star Trek film are considered oddities, while someone who watches Star Trek or Dr Who are given odd looks.

The fact of the matter is that Star Wars is infinitely less of a "Geek Pastime" than 40k because it is more ingrained into popular culture.

>>26450091

Dr. Who doesn't have the same level of recognition and Star Trek branded itself harder towards 'nerd shit' and has taken forever to build up wide acceptance and followings.

Star Wars is the flashy action movie cousin of the two who steals all the attention despite having no substance beyond the first two movies of the original trilogy, and even then they were very simplistic and easy to follow.

>>26449254
They weren't codices as such, but as I recall the supplement books like Freebooterz were hardback - which at the time I thought odd, as the actual RT book was soft back...

>>26450065
I liked the Chaos Warrior models. So simple but so cool.

>>26448728
nope sorry thats not true they came out with the 3rd ed chaos dex.

>>26446805
Can we get a triple row of indentical power armor marneus calgar along the bottom?
How about Dante and Mephiston (I know he had a plasma pistol redesign)?
That space wolf captain with the wolf helm currently sold as 'Wolf Guard'?
Battle sisters?
Phoenix Lords?
Azrael and Ezekiel?

Many of the best sculpts ever done for 40k haven't changed in decades except to add sculpted banners or swap out an old weapon.

>>26450533
And then can we get another one comparing 3rd and 4th edition minis to 5th and 6th, to see where they've gone downhill?

The old daemon prince vs. the shitty plastic version, things like that.

>>26449119
>dat feel when you started at the end of 2nd and everything is finally getting better after 2 editions of hell.

>dat feel when innumeracy

>>26448541
>Deathwing Terminators with 1+ on 2D6 armour save
But that isn't true

>IG players who could field off the board artillery pieces
Not true either, but they do get a pregame bombardment

>1,500 point game takes three hours
If you're slow or stoned. It's only four turns, the hell's taking you so long?

>Carnifex with about 40,000 wounds
10 wounds, and a lascannon deals 2d6 wounds, while a multimelta does 2-d-fucking-12. Comparing statlines to the current game is misleading if you're not going to explain the context.

>Models look like something tony hart could have bashed together in 20 mins
Well, maybe.

>>26449626
News flash star wars hasnt been relevent for a few years now outside of its hardcore fan base that didnt let go.

>>26436548
In a way. People's tastes and preferences change less than the game.

>>26447214
I actually like that, goddamnit forgeworld.

>>26448541
WEll I got good news for you anon

http://www.4shared.com/folder/G_p1YSSc/2nd_Edition_Warhammer_40K.html

>>26452309
Where would one get the dice for 2nd edition?

>>26452345
Honestly, we just painted a couple of blank D6's to make them. It's not hard and gives them character.

>>26446805

>one bolter on the left bike is pointing down

>>26452403
saw that too did ya?

>>26452498

I remember that they had really, really flimsy and incredibly thin bolters in some casting frames that didn't fit anywhere and would just wobble about. They had an extended stock as far as I recall.

>>26452528
good to keep in mind, als forgeworld bikers look hella nice, I might have to pick up some for my dark angels army.

>liking 40K

kek

>>26432776
>>Dat feel when 40k is reintroducing stuff that has been part of the setting since the 80s.

>>26452815
>that feel when all you want is some fucking knights of the Mechanicus variety.

>>26450633
>>IG players who could field off the board artillery pieces
>we still can its called a master of ordnance now.

>>26452345
Current scatter dice work fine, regular old polyhedrals are good, the sustained fire dice is the only one to worry about and you can just do a table in your head - 1-2 = 1, 3-4 = 2, 5 =3, 6= jammed.

Oh, and you need the artillery dice, I think those are still available for Fantasy? But they're easy too. I think 2e only uses the small one, which is just two times the number, misfire on 6.

>>26453051
Happy, happy days. If only we could go back to 2nd Edition prices...

I honestly don't see what the problem is with 40k.
People are bitching about it around the clock, ''Oh! Please! These units suck now because they've got a +4 save instead of a +3!'' Or just fucking ''Look! The eldar have giant eldars running around as heavy ordnance, this game sucks now!''

Shut the fuck up. Get a grip you fucking neckbeards.

>>26449091
Yes.

In other nostalgia news, did you know that the Nid list in the 3rd Edition Rulebook came out on top in the 1st Grand Tourney after the edition came out. Beating multiple armies with actual codices no less.

I really like the redesign of White Dwarf. The font, the layout and the paper, man. The paper is just brilliant.

>>26453776
>Googley-eyed-brain-marines.
>did you know that the Nid list in the 3rd Edition Rulebook came out on top in the 1st Grand Tourney after the edition came out.

I did not know that, no wonder 'nids were one of the armies I could never beat in 3rd edition.

>>26449631
Abbadon, Eldrad's escaped! Assemble a team of 5 Chaos Marines with attitude!

>>26453840
I keep threatening to a a diorama of 5 Crisis Suits painted in different colours.

>>26453832
iirc, it had to do with the 'can't shoot through units' rule. You could shoot over models that didn't block more than 1/2 LOS to the models behind them. The problem was with nids, and 3rd, you had this 'up-scaling' effect. Infantry could never block LOS to a vehicle, but nids couold have their rippers block LOS to gaunts, the gaunts block LOS to stealers, the stealers block LOS to warriors, the warriors block LOS to hive-tyrants and carnifexes. The result was if you wanted to shoot something, your LOS was blocked by the unit in front of it, which in turn was blocked by the unit in front of that, and so forth... until you were stuck firing lascannons at rippers/gaunts. That's why when the 3rd ed Nid codex was made, there was a specific rule titled "Shoot the Big Ones", which made it so Nid models never blocked LOS to other nid modesl, and monsters could always be targeted out no matter what units they joined. The exception were hive guard, which counted as part of the unit and could take hits for the monster.

>>26434554
She's cute.

>>26453960
That's pretty harsh.

>>26453091
I do just fine on ebay, but maybe that's because I'm content with building my army out of 2nd edition snap fit starter marines.
>No, I'm not lazy, I fucking love freehand heraldry and I want my Lamenters to look like the front of Codex: Army Lists.

>>26454044
>I do just fine on ebay, but maybe that's because I'm content with building my army out of 2nd edition snap fit starter marines
Hmm, should probably take a look around ebay then.
>No, I'm not lazy, I fucking love freehand heraldry and I want my Lamenters to look like the front of Codex: Army Lists.

I've always prefered frehand heraldry, even if I do have a shaky hand.

>>26454040
If I recall you had to keep them base to base for it to work which made you extremely vulnerable to blasts and templates.

But with 6 point plasma guns and 15 point lascannons no one took those.

>>26453711
>People are bitching about it around the clock, ''Oh! Please! These units suck now because they've got a +4 save instead of a +3!'' Or just fucking ''Look! The eldar have giant eldars running around as heavy ordnance, this game sucks now!''

No, actually, some of us liked 40k until we tried playing actually well written wargames, found out 40k has been mediocre all along and then gone sharply downhill.
People who complain about army list changes are fucking idiots, I agree. The army lists have never been balanced, some units suck, some units don't, it's been that way and it always will be. The core system continues to be a retardedly ornate version of 3rd edition. The whole point of 3rd was to simplify things and emphasize quick, whole-table strategic flow rather than in-depth tactics. Because the core of the system is made to be abstract, quick, and general, the detail returning to the game since 4th edition is largely implemented in clumsy workarounds.

>>26454147
Funny, I just recalled something about having to shoot at the closest target.

>>26454177
>found out 40k has been mediocre all along and then gone sharply downhill.
Which is not to say it isn't or hasn't been fun. I've enjoyed all the 40k I've ever played, but compared to basically all other wargames it's clunky and bad at coherently representing the stories it's supposed to, especially after 3rd edition.

>>26454177
>The whole point of 3rd was to simplify things and emphasize quick, whole-table strategic flow rather than in-depth tactics. Because the core of the system is made to be abstract, quick, and general, the detail returning to the game since 4th edition is largely implemented in clumsy workarounds.
It's done very clumsily. A lot of the things they keep shoving in could be better kept as codex special rules, especially to help differentiate the myriad Marine variants without resorting to silly units and dumb models.

Or maybe I'm just a bitter DA player who wishes they gave us back Intractable and is getting the feeling his army was used as Codex Space Marines Beta Test Version again.

>>26449729
>reinstalling Vampire:Bloodlines
Goddamn. Mention it and someone will reinstall it...

>>26454374
>A lot of the things they keep shoving in could be better kept as codex special rules
Or, usually, by statline adjustments and little notes explaining said adjustments. I used to like how they'd do that. You could have a nice special rule kind of name for the effect without making the game more complicated.
Most special rules are ways of mechanically representing narrative differences that the stats are supposed to cover. Feel No Pain, story-wise, should be no different than an improved toughness. For example.

>>26450041
Maybe.

But the Phantom Menace is still awful.

>>26454682
eh I can see it being relevant then again in my army feel no pain takes the form of a medipack.

>>26454374

GW played it too cautious for DA. CSM suffered the same problem but got Heldrake FAQ to make up for it. At this rate DA is going to be the shittiest book in the edition, just because it came first along with CSM.

>>26456473
thats how it always goes.

>>26447124
Damn, those looked good.

>>26447124
What'dya mean?
They still are Red/silver...
Aren't they?

>>26454374
>Or maybe I'm just a bitter DA player who wishes they gave us back Intractable and is getting the feeling his army was used as Codex Space Marines Beta Test Version again
>implying that if Vanilla Mehreens are that much better you can't just run your dudes as Vanillas

>>26459476
>Shame the 1st Legion by running my DA as SM
I haven't done that since back when I was waiting for them to release the updated C:DA in 3rd edition so I didn't need to buy the book twice.

There's more to this game than using some other armies rules because you think they're more powerful or because they're new.

>>26460610

DA have never had the burden of being worst book in the game, even in 5th simply because they can always rely on plasma and wing formations. DA will never be the SoB or BT or whatever book was bottom of the barrel in the past, but they also seem to be plagued by mediocrity and being under average.

If you want to play greenwing, you are pretty fucked, but if you want to play Deathwing/Ravenwing formations, DA are not too bad.

>>26460610
>some other armies rules
That's the thing, though. Codex: Space Marines is for codex-adherent Marine chapters, which is what Dark Angels are. It would still be perfectly acceptable as your army's rules. You'd miss out on some specific options, I guess, but would it be so very different from, say, running Iyanden using the Eldar Codex without the Supplement?

>>26460722
>codex-adherent Marine chapters, which is what Dark Angels are.

Bro, DA wouldn't have their own book if they were an adherent chapter.

I see nothing wrong with using C:SM if you want to play a non-wing DA army/greenwing.

>>26460934
Both DA and BA ARE very codex. BA merely has more emphasis on assault squads and DA have a different organization for their 1st and 2nd companies. The rest of their chapter is very by the book.

If that's enough to be non-codex, then how about Raven Guard, who also make extensive use of assault marines? Or Iron Hands where there are no scout nor veteran companies and each company is its own independent force responsible for recruiting and equipping, and have terminator sergeants in squads? Exorcists, which have 12 companies and use daemonic possessions? Crimson Fists with their 128 member 1st company? Salamanders with little in the way of assault squads or land speeders? Mentor Legion, who get plenty of experimental equipment and instead of fighting as a single force spread their troops among the other factions of the Imperium? Red Scorpions with lots of Apothecaries?

All these chapters are "Codex".

>>26464492
>Crimson Fists isn't codex adherent

Nigger they were the poster boys of one of the vanilla books and they have a vanilla named character. The only reason they're not adherent NOW is because they got fucked up.