>>98343144
Yes I do.
I'd love to spoonfeed you, but last time I did, it got taken down.
There are at least 3 different torrents with everything, even some spanish version from the first books till 7th. Some even have things till 9th.
3rd and 4th things are the easiest one to find even with just using current insane AI google

>>98343144
search something like "40k 4e Battle Bible Project" on 4plebs

There were some anons compiling this stuff a while back

You mean you don't have your 4th ed rulebook? You mean you don't have every rule already memorised from the old days? NGMI

Is this edition really the definitive best one even with nostalgia taken out of consideration?

>>98345232
This or 5th, it's subjective
>inb4 autistic screeching

>>98345232
lolno. The latest edition has always been the best. What you really are after is playing with someone that has the same mentality as you do.

>>98345232
I would personally pick 5e with 4e LOS and cover and different wound allocation, and probably play with missions and scoring more like post 8e 40k. 5e is probably the best version of the classic middlehammer core rules.

The biggest problem with 5e was Codex Creep, with GK and Nucrons being pretty egregious at the time iirc.

File: gallery_26_7488_536117.png (1.81 MB, 1082x734)

1.81 MB PNG

I'm primarily a 2nd edition fan, but I would switch to 3.5/4th in a second if it had a bit more psychic flavor, it just feels missing after getting accustomed to 2nd.

I've been thinking lately about homebrewing a more pronounced psychic phase/ disciplines in as I only really play the older stuff with friends anyways.

>>98345232
There’s a lot of stupid bullshit in it that stuck around for a few more editions, no pre measuring being the absolute worst. Armour facings on vehicles sucked as well. But it doesn’t babble on like a lot of current rules do because a lot of it was mostly common sense. If you found a weird edge case situation you just talked it out with your opponent

shit edition unless you play Eldar

>>98345586
>Armour facings on vehicles sucked as well.
Your taste is so shit as to be unbelievable. Turning vehicles into Monstrous Creatures fucking obliterated balance and it has never recovered to this day.

>>98345232
Yes. I started in 2nd(in fact I fell in with a very groggy group who hated 3rd so I played 2nd for a couple of years longer than most other people who were around at the time) and it was actually 6th WHFB that convinced me GW were on to something with their design philosophy at the time.

RT is barely even 40K until the last six months or so of its existence, at which point you're as well playing 2nd instead it's way more polished. That said, we're talking in relative terms, 2nd is still a bit of a shitshow, by the time you've made enough gentlemen's agreements to set the terms of a game you'll have to come back next week to actually play because the club night will be over already. 3rd took things too far in the other direction, creating something that was pretty tidy and straightforward but a little sterile, not helped by some of the initial codices being a bit spare. That said by the time you hit 4th 3rd had been improved a lot with various experimental addon rules that were adopted pretty universally and were mostly incorporated into 4th core rules, and by then you have much of the real jewel of the period: the supplementary material. Chapter Approved, Index Astartes, the Citadel Journal, the 3.5 updated codices and the first few 4th 'dexes, Imperial Armour - so much *stuff* to play around with, you could play dozens of subfactions and many armies had build-your-own rules. The setting was fleshed out but not overdetailed. The fluff was grimdark but not yet grimderp. It's the bowl of porridge that's just right. 5th introduced a bunch of bullshit to the core rules, started pushing named characters, sharted out some of the most comically terrible fluff GW have ever produced, basically it was the start of a decline in quality that's never really ended.

>>98345586
>no pre measuring being the absolute worst.
You are a joke.

>>98345586
>Armour facings on vehicles sucked as well.
Best part of 4th edition.

>>98345399
5th edition is pure destiled trash, wound allocation brakes the game, vehicle rules are trash, true los is dumb, running and going to ground brake the game. Codex books are super unbalanced. The more you play it the more you realize how bad it is.

>>98345941
I’m not an advocate for the retardation that is modern vehicles with their bloated wound pools. And I don’t hate every aspect of vehicle rules. Vehicle damage charts for example were goated and should’ve never left

>>98347575
Whats the fucking point of playing maneuver warfare, if it doesn't matter the way your vehicles are facing. Get flanked nuhammer pig.

>>98345232
4th is kind of the least retarded rules for 40k.
5th introduced shit that we still have issue today like True Line of Sight. That one in particular is mostly a marketing thing so they could sell some silly laser pointer and make the new edition flashier, since it was around this time that GW went full corpo. Had some fixes to terrain like the levels in buildings when shooting with templates for example.
But it also introduce things that the game was not made for, like running for everyone. While not changing weapon ranges and board sizes. The original 6x4 board was already on the small size for 1500 to 2500 points game, but it worked since everyone was slow and even "fast" things could at best move 12"
4th on the other hand is mostly a compilation of Errata, FAQ, Chapter Approved rules from 3rd, so it is basically 3rd, but fixed. Which is what 5th should've been, but corpo had other ideas.
6th later introduced shit like psychic phase for no real benefit and the horribly implemented alliance system.
7th was basically trying to fix and make functional the mess that 5th and 6th introduced to the game and on its own 7th is not a bad ruleset. The issue comes from the army rules that have no regard for internal or external "balance" (Not talking about winrates) but 7th had a lot of dumb shit.
For example free transports for one faction while everyone else had to pay for it, some got free upgrades it was not as a oppressive since at best the faction could get 500 points of free upgrades. While other factions only had special broken rules when playing Apocalypse rest of the time the army rule would not be much different than from something from 3rd/4th.
Play 7th rules with 3rd codex and the system works rather well. Is not horrible as people remember, the main issue was the army rules.
TLDR: 4th is the best option between all the shit show that happen when GW went public and any change you want to do the system is flexible enough to support it

>>98345232
Undoubtedly either 4th or 2nd, which one you consider best depends on your preference in gaming style and how large of a game you're trying to play. 2nd does quite well for smaller sizes if you FAQ out the most egregious and stupid stuff like virus outbreak. Once armies start getting too big it breaks down though, and then you want 4th, which is basically just 3rd with all the kinks ironed out. Importantly, though, you do NOT want most of the 4th edition codexes. There was a clear shift in 2006 after Cities of Death. You use all of the Codexes from before Cities of Death, whether it's 3rd or 4th. CoD itself is also great, as are all of the expansions that follow, just don't use codexes from after that point. They're all much worse designed overall than the ones they replaced.

>>98345232
>>98345344
Objectively 4th edition with 5th edition run rules is the best edition

>>98343144
Will spoonfeed you once.
Go to the 40K generals and look up the download links there.

>>98345344
>>98345399
5th was just straight inferior. No one who played both 4th and 5th preferred 5th, it only has proponents because a bunch of people started in 5th after learning about 40k through Dawn of War vidya.

>>98349851
Running is part of the issues of 5th.
The expected boards are already small and if everyone can move 6"+d6" then things like Fast Attack starts to lose part of their thing.

>>98350584
4th was far better but complaining about running in 5th is dumb, it was one of the few changes that was actually good. Allowing units to trade off shooting or charging to move an extra ~3.5" did not break the game, don't be fucking ridiculous. 2nd ed had running and it wasn't a problem.

>>98343144
you pathetic fucking retard.
proceed to kill yourself ASAP

>>98350713
Uh oh, tourney tranny meltie

>>98350627
>2nd ed had running and it wasn't a problem.
2nd was closer to a skirmish game than something at platoon level like 40k from 3rd onwards.
You really had fewer units and models running around hehehe than 3rd/4th/5th
Also I did say part of the issues, not that it broke it. Usually Fast Attack units had weapons that allow them to move and shoot and/or some movement benefit like Jump Packs, Transports backed in the cost, infiltration, deep strike.
While other things like genestealers or eldar had their special rule about running that give them something to represent their fast movements with the +D6" movement that everyone got. 5th replaced that with they could charge after running... Which they already could do before 5th change it for change sake.
3rd/4th was a position game, the running on itself is not an issue since it already existed for some units to represent their fast nature. Giving it to everyone and replacing it with nothing is not exactly good game design.
You can see a lot of 5th random changes for changes sake plaguing modern 40k, running, true line of sight, rules that encourage tournament mentality like wound allocation. To name a few just in the rulebook. 5th Codex started to introduce the free gear too that is also a plague to 40k since then.

>>98348399
4th ed actually recommended 1500 points as the standard, rather than 2000. I’m not really sure why the players (myself included) all somehow thought 2000 was meant to be the status quo.
>true los
Didn’t 4th ed also use True LoS as the foundation, but then had area terrain rules atop it? My friends and I played in our youths accidentally using the 4th Ed area terrain rules all the way to 6th Ed because we just never noticed they forgot to put them in.

>>98351292
2000 was the tournament standard by then
in 3rd it was 1750-1850

>>98343144
4th ed codexs are shit.
But day 1 of 4th ed or day 2150 of 3rd.

>>98351305
Lmao no it wasn't
1500 is event standard for 3rd. 1750 is end of 4th.

>>98351334
>4th ed codexs are shit.
The second wave of them were, the first four were really good.

>>98351305
Bro what the fuck are you talking about, 1850 was tournament standard even through 7th, you can literally search in the /tg/ archives and find people talking about it. It finally switched to 2000 in 8th edition with the big rules refresh.

>>98351334
you are not disrespecting the 4th ed nids codex while I'm alive

>>98351378
>>98351343
Only thing I can think of is he's getting confused by the ard Boyz events.

>>98351371
>>98351391
Eh maybe.
But Eldar, CSM and the hated demons codex were all retarded.

>>98351525
Yeah those all came after the changeover.

>>98351371
Found the starcannon spammer

>>98351600
I never played Eldar, the whole codex design style and format changed midway through 4th and everything after that change sucked.

>>98345232
Ehhh, me and my friend decided to get into retro 40K and we tried a couple of games of 4th edition before deciding to move onto 5th. We just thought that the core rules were more polished, we bumped into a bunch of scenarios in just 2 games of 4th edition that had no solution that 5th edition accounted for, shit like ramming walkers for example. We also like a lot of the changes that 5th made, power fists were toned down, universal running is a neat change, blast weapons not just disappearing into the void half the time is good, having to pay to move up a building level as well as the clarifications around templates and terrain were all positive. The codexes were probably worse, even avoiding the OP as balls shit that came out later in the edition, stuff like the 5th Guard codex is probably worse than the 4th codex (although this is subjective really, depends if you prefer orders or regiments) but 4th edition codexes seem to be forward compatible pretty easily, so that's not a huge issue. 5th wound allocation is fucking stupid though but it's so easy to homebrew that it's a non factor. Really it's a matter of personal taste though, and really it's all theoretical anyway, 3rd-5th are all so close that people should just be cherrypicking their favourite bits of each if they want to play old 40K.

>>98350627
It didn't "break" the game, but it was unquestionably a negative and you're a retard if you think otherwise. It diminished loads of FA and specialist units relative to basic infantry and killy elites which all got more manoeuvrable for no cost, which then caused GW to have to try and find ways to make those diminished units appealing again leading to power creep. Giving what were specialist perks to everybody makes the game feel more samey and rewards braindead play.

>>98352461
You are a braindead retard who clearly never played 4th or 5th and are just repeating dumb shit you've seen other retards say.

No, giving 6" moving troops an extra d6" of movement if they gave up all shooting and charging that turn to do it, which often whiffed and was just an extra 1-2" to help them get into position in the first turn or two, did not diminish Fast Attack units that had fucking 12"-18" regular movement and could still shoot or charge after that. Fucking moron.

>>98351525
The 4e Eldar codex was much better than the 3e one IMO, it made aspect warriors far more usable and the bullshit OP Falcons were entirely the product of the 4e core rules as IIRC the Falcon was entirely unchanged from 3e.

File: 1783947354973175.jpg (46 KB, 467x677)

46 KB JPG

>>98343144
They are cheap on ebay. I got 3rd ed 40k for less than 20 bucks.

But anyways fuck that play Old World.

>>98345586
>no pre measuring being the absolute worst
lmao what the fuck, way to out yourself goober

>>98352692
>bullshit OP Falcons
2nd, 3rd and 4th they were bullshit.
Just a side effect of the way glances and holofields worked. Also fireprisms just being worse.

5th they were less good but only because heavy armour prevalence made fire prisms useful and you wanted davu serpents to score.

~t competitive eldar player 2nd to7th ed

>>98352853
1 of 36 hits destroys a falcon

An imperial guard lass cannon needs 81 shots to destroy a falcon.

If a tank or a squad parks behind a falcon and destroys it, the infantry inside dies becase they have no room to exit.

Harlequins are busted, and brake the inner codex balance, they are simply better scorpions or banshees. Also their night figh rule is bullshit, its plain better than any other equivalent in the game.

Even then 4th edition is the only decent 40k rule set.

>>98351371
Nids, tau, marines are good books.

>>98352912
And imperial armour are the best warhammer books ever.

>>98352900
>1 of 36 hits destroys a falcon
That was only the case because of 4th edition's rule that skimmers moving fast can only take glancing hits no matter what, when the core rules changed falcons suddenly went from immortal god machines to being reasonably tough for an AV12 vehicle (that also gets dangerously close to the price tag of a land raider when you load it up with all the survivability toys).

File: 1709703342052996.jpg (146 KB, 736x765)

146 KB JPG

Why did they ever kill off the Armory system? Especially right in the middle of this edition?

>>98352922
>And imperial armour are the best warhammer books ever.
Vraks is thing of beauty.but that's much later.
That said I do enjoy the soft covers from 3rd ed

>>98350627
Running is quantifiably too strong in 40k and I can explain why. you already have 6” of standard movement + a d6. forgoing shooting and charging only sounds balanced. The problem is not that it’s a statistical 3.5” advantage, it’s actually that the possibility of being able to move 12” on an ordinary, standard unit of infantry is absolutely broken, regardless of if you give up something, or never roll more than a single inch. Why especially should normal infantry ever be allowed to move that far? The distance of 6” was also not chosen totally arbitrarily, it was chosen knowing the dimensions of the table. movement of all units was built around it. If a standard unit of infantry can move as far as special units can move, simply as a standard rule, crossing the board becomes trivial and distance to contact is meaningless. Not to mention jump infantry or beasts ALSO being able to run, adding even greater absurdity to the ruling.

>>98351292
During 3rd/4th it was around 1000, 1500 and es time passed 1750 and 1850.
2000 Was something more common during 5th to be honest.
By 7th 1850 and 2000 was the most common format.

>>98353127
Someone at GW made Power Levels.
Player base hated it
That same guy got in power of the rules and forced Power Levels to everyone regardless.
The only explanation of why? Is because the retard found net list hard and hated it.

>>98353695
Running should have just been a stat on the unit. "Infantry move 6in, but can run..." is not simpler than some units move 4,5,6,7,8in.

File: GHp3VRQXAAMiGnq.png (141 KB, 849x589)

141 KB PNG

>>98353695
>>98353797
Desu I think the Fleet rule was the best way to handle running where only really agile dudes like Eldar could do it.

>>98353936
*do it at the cost of shooting

>>98353360
Volume 3 is absolutely fantastic, 4 is great too. Both for 4th edition.

File: IMG_20260529_114749.jpg (275 KB, 1080x1066)

275 KB JPG

>>98352998
That was only because of this man and his pet faction.

File: 1756122253080858.png (455 KB, 389x514)

455 KB PNG

I just want a casualfag solution I can use to play fast games with myself. Preferably without required supplements.
2e is top tier for flavour but seems rules heavy
4th is neat and comes with a lot of shit but my book got mouldy and it's still too bloated for what I want.
Space Weirdos I am unsure about.
Renegade Scout doesn't seem like my bag.
OPR is annoyingly going the way of nuGW and catering to tournament play.

>>98354003
>4th is neat and comes with a lot of shit but my book got mouldy and it's still too bloated for what I want.
3rd/4th have all their shit in digital form for years now. New Recruit even has army builder for almost everything from 3rd. It has Harlequins for fuck sake

>>98354035
So?

>>98354087
>gets given digital casual fag utility information
>So?
lmao just get siri to summarize youtube battle reps for you.

>>98354087
Are you 8 or something?

>>98353797
Having units separated into blocks like infantry, jump infantry, vehicle, etc, gave units more identity, and I don’t agree that a stat is simpler. It’s easier to remember that all infantry move at 6” rather than trying to remember if x unit has 7, 8, 9 10” of movement

>>98354131
>post says I don't want to play 4e
Are you and your boyfriend retarded?

>>98354172
It also does not add much to the game when every unit moves slight different.
In smaller scale games it makes perfect sense to have variations, but at the levels of regular 40k? why bother.
Even OPR has a better solutions with the fast and slow keywords being +/-2" movement. That way the basic bitch dude that moves 6" has some variation but is not the stupid shit that modern 40k does that random things have slightly different movement than the rest

>>98354198
>4th is neat and comes with a lot of shit but my book got mouldy and it's still too bloated for what I want.
>4th is neat
>still too bloated for what I want
Not what the post says. Also 4th is not bloated. Bloated would be something like modern 40k from 8th to 11th.
Even 7th that was an absolute mess of an editions its core rules are good enough to be used in other games like Horus Heresy.
Anon is confusing bloat with options.

>>98353695
Nta but I think they did consider the size of the table. 4th ed games are 6 to 9 turns. So you have more time to move your 6” dudes. I think 5th Ed changed the turn limit to 5 to 6 turns? So it makes sense to me that units can justify being a little faster.

>>98353768
>James got ridiculed for years about how they can’t balance
>what if we just don’t lol!?!
>corpo loves it
Players hate it and revolt
>”what if we multiply it by 10 and call it points again but change nothing?”
Players love it

So here we are

>>98354328
Most mission where 6 turns, unless the Omega version of the mission added random length.
Then the game could last forever. Since on a 4+ an extra turn was played.
But just like a Civilization game, you usually knew the result of the game before the actual game ended and you kept rolling for an extra turn if there was a possibility of winning thanks to that.

>>98354366
Players are still bitching. Only ones not complaining never knew better or just worship corpo dicking.

File: 1779449187551638.png (419 KB, 800x723)

419 KB PNG

>>98354227
>still too bloated for what I want

>>98354388
>Anon is confusing bloat with options.
Read nigga. read!
4th rules are basic as hell. Remember 10 years old from 3rd world country doing translation with English to Spanish Dictionary played this crap without issues. So you must be confusing options with bloat.

>>98354403
I don't have an interest in playing 4th

>>98354376
Omega was the default though the other one was just the beginners option. But I swear the turns capped at 9 somewhere in that book.
>result of the game
I am a huge advocate for random game length because of this, and I think it’s removal is one of the most impactful (damaging) things that pushed the new editions over the edge into tourney space. Being able to calculate that you cannot possibly win half way through the game because you don’t have enough turns left sucks. Random game length also goes a huge way towards stomping on the hide-all-game-zip-to-objectives cheese that happened. Just like freeform premeasuring, it gives players too much information to be able to act too precisely upon.

>>98354487
>hide-all-game-zip-to-objectives
I think that's because offense, especially shooting has become exponentially more lethal between more shots than ever getting rerolled more than Middlehammer inflicting more damage than ever. And that's even with more multi-wound models and defensive rerolls than ever.

>>98354487
>Omega was the default though
Actually it was not.
The default was to roll and see what you got. Alpha prevented some rules like Deep Strike for example, but some units could do it regardless.
Gamma, usually just added special rules like Deep Strike. Meanwhile Omega added more deployment and reinforcement rules along with more things.
But it depended on the mission, some didn't even use the Alpha, Gamma and Omega system and had fixed special things

>>98352484
Yes they do diminish them, you absolute dipshit, because the value of FA units(which did not ALL move 12-18" you disingenuous poofter) AND of Fleet units(which you conveniently ignored, you fuckwitted troon) AND of transports(which you also ignore, you colossal ignoramus) is that they did something regular infantry could not - move faster than the otherwise fixed base 6" movement.

By making ALL infantry Fleet, you make transports less necessary, Fleet troops less useful, and FA choices less special and so less points efficient. And giving up shooting isn't a penalty for a melee unit that WANTS to close with the enemy asap and has negligible ranged firepower if any at all. You shitwitted, thick-skulled, braindead mongoloid.

>>98352484
Anon you can’t win vs this guy. He has sperged out in every Fourk and homebrew thread for like the last 2 years.

>>98354882
Nothing you're saying is remotely as impactful as you're pretending it is, because as previously stated, you never fucking played and have only read about these editions after the fact.

Yes, just about every Fast Attack unit in the game was moving at least 12" you stupid faggot (inb4 you point out like one or two exceptions across the entire fucking game when 95% of FA units had 12" or higher movement). And Fleet still gave the added benefit of charging after running, which made them faster on the turns they moved into melee, and units which were more about shooting but were supposed to be agile, like Eldar, got Battle Focus later to make up for this. Some units also got rules to roll extra dice and take the highest when running to represent them still being faster than base infantry. Transports were still very relevant because they consistently could move 12" OR MORE instead of 6+d6 and also protected the troops inside (and vehicles in general were a lot better in 5th).

At no point ever did Running of all things break the game, of all the bad changes 5th made like TLOS and other terrible shit no one ever fucking complained about that one, they only complained about their armies being too slow when they got fucked over other ways (Tyranids, for example, lost the 12" charge from Leaping, because their codex was written by a retard, but that wasn't an issue with universal Run). You are exaggerating the fuck out of the impact it had and are clearly and autistic little nogames. Seethe continuously.

>>98355569
I already won by virtue of just being objectively correct after playing hundreds of games of 4th and 5th edition, I don't care how much he rageshits his pants over it.

>>98354565
Cover is also way less effective in the current game, -1 to hit (or the +1 to armour in a system where most weapons apply a negative modifier to armour saves that we just left behind) is way less effective than Middlehammer's flat save regardless of AP value.