Thread #97597877
File: 916Cl9bg8rL.jpg (855.2 KB)
855.2 KB JPG
I think the widely accepted definition of 'Oldhammer' is Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition, or at least that's what /GROG/ seems to stick to. These games were intended to be played on a much smaller scale than later editions, and tended to have vastly more complicated rules, often blurring the line between wargame and RPG.
3rd Edition was a major overhaul and departure from RT and 2nd. It established the basic structure of all future editions: one core rulebook containing the game rules, and a separate codex for each faction containing their lore, units, wargear, and special rules, with occasional, completely optional supplements. Rules were heavily simplified and streamlined, enabling much larger model counts. So it's reasonable to say that 'Midhammer' starts with 3rd Edition, but where does it end? The 4th Edition rules are nearly identical to 3rd, with just a few minor tweaks to transports and close combat, and 5th Edition is nearly identical to 4th, with the major change being the adoption of "True Line Of Sight". Seems reasonable to include those editions, especially since their codexes were more or less compatible with each other (even if they weren't always balanced).
How about 6th though? Does that count as Midhammer? Lot of significant changes here. Hull points, 2d6 charge range, wound allocation is way different, flyers, formations, etc. It really is a big departure from 3-5. You couldn't use the codexes of prior editions. How about 7th? Even more major changes with the separate Psychic phase, Tactical Objectives, Detactments and super-heavies being a normal part of the game. Things are starting to feel pretty modern at this point. I don't think theres a good argument to be made that 8th and 9th Editions count as Midhammer, but feel free to present one if you have it.
So where do you draw the line as to what counts as 'Oldhammer' or 'Midhammer'? Do you think a Midhammer General would have enough interest to thrive?
98 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 98 replies.>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
There's no great mystery. 40k Midhammer is 3rd-5th. Fantasy Midhammer is basically just 6th (it had a long lifespan). I would love a Midhammer general. As a WHF 6th edition player I feel that I belong in neither /wfg/ (which is just TOW shit) or /grog/.
>>
>>97599349
Though, you could argue that 7th edition WHF was Midhammer too. It was in essence a continuation of 6th, but as the edition went on, the "Newhammer" influence grew and grew. Centrepiece models started creeping in, power creep with each army book, etc. I guess it depends what stage of 7th edition we're talking about.
>>
>>97597877
>I think the widely accepted definition of 'Oldhammer' is Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition
I think you're a lying sack of shit desperately trying to get people to buy your highly contestable opinion as some kind of established fact because you don't think anyone is autistic enough to challenge you, but bad news buddy.
>3rd Edition was a major overhaul and departure from RT and 2nd
*BUZZER* incorrect. 3rd was a continuation of a process begun by 2nd, you can literally watch them talking about this shit on youtube.
>Rules were heavily simplified and streamlined
*BUZZER* incorrect. They were streamlined and simplified, but "heavily" is far too strong a term, and a typical 1500pt 2nd army could be expanded into a typical 1500pt 3rd army with an extra unit or two. Yes the streamlined rules *allowed* people to more easily play larger point value games, but people were doing that already just in a more frustrating way with 2nd, and larger point values didn't really become commonplace in everyday gaming for many years after 3rd once the tournament scene took off and established 1850 as the "default" army size.
Oldhammer comprises 1st-3rd WHFB and Rogue Trader, defined by the style of the gameplay, the corporate ethos of the company, the art vibe, whatever metric you like. Middlehammer comprises WHFB 4th-6th and 40K 2nd-4th by the same standards. While 7th WHFB and 5th 40K are arguable and could be described as transitional editions, they are the beginning of Newhammer and all its ills so for my money Newhammer is 7th & 8th WHFB and 5th-7th 40K. ET & AoS and 8th+ 40K consitute Nuhammer or "WINO"(Warhammer In Name Only).
As for Midhammer needing a general: what for, you fucking melt, that's what /GROG/ is for. GW Retro and Oldhammer General. I note some faggot(probably you) has substituted a "/" for the "and" in recent threads to try and imply the two terms mean the same thing, but they don't - Retro covers "old GW that isn't Oldhammer" ie Middlehammer.
>>
>>97599416
I am not that anon, but I've been questioning the orthodoxy recently with regards to 6th ed WHFB being midhammer. Does it really belong in the same category as 4th and 5th? I know we can have a discussion about corporate direction (Were they marketing 6th to children and selling the models/box sets at toy stores like they were with 4th and 5th?), but 6th really doesn't have the same artstyle or gameplay as 4th and 5th. I know 6th is something of a sacred cow (with good reason!), but is it really midhammer? I honestly don't think it is, the only trait shared across the three "midhammer" editions is the corporate ethos, everything else is drastically different from 4th and 5th being herohammer vs. 6th being cavhammer, 4th and 5th not being that grimdark vs. 6th arguably transforming Fantasy to be more like 40k in tone, magic, the shift from metals to plastic making up the bulk of an army, armies getting a fair bit bigger in 6th, that sort of thing. So, where does 6th really fall? Are we making a distinction between eras based on quality, or based on the objective traits of each edition? Does oldhammer and newhammer = good and newhammer = bad, necessarily? With regards to 6th not being newhammer, holistically, sure, 6th is better than 7th and 8th, but these groupings shouldn't be based on quality, should they? Also, I don't think evaluating 8th separately from the End Times is fair. By that logic, couldn't you evaluate 7th separately from its game-breaking army books?
I think 6thfags (whom I respect greatly, because they're right, 6th is fantastic and arguably the best edition, though I am very fond of the aesthetics of 1st-5th) have been trying to create some non-existent and frankly unnecessary distance between 6th and 7th, and therefore 8th. Why bother? 6th can and should stand on its own merits. Put it in the newhammer category, and it will only make the goatfuck that was 7th -> 8th -> ET -> AoS even more apparent.
>>
>>97597877
Having been around at the time of 3rd's release, it was a truly huge overhaul which fixed myriad problems of 2nd's bloated and broken system. The completely modular plastic space marines were a revelation. Until then you were paying £20 in 1998 for a metal tactical squad or buying the inferior monoposes or the Warriors of the Imperium combat squad. The new boys came in at exactly half the price and opened up endless creative opportunities for players.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: PXL_20240803_160105910.jpg (3.2 MB)
3.2 MB JPG
Oh my god is this the guy that can't accept 2nd edition 40k isn't, in the purest definition, Oldhammer?
It's big box plastics, it's not as 2000AD, it's definitely retro enough that people play it at Oldhammer days, but it's just not quite Oldhammer.
Though there is a really interesting debate about Middlehammer. Is it just 4th and 5th edition WHFB, and 2nd edition 40k? What about the grungier 6th ed WHFB and 3rd/4th 40k?
What about "Specialist Games" as a whole, Man o' War and first edition Necromunda are Middlehammer, but then it's Inquisitor and BFG and Warmaster.
>>
>>
>>97599940
I'm not saying I disagree with you, but why? Substantiate! I think it's not midhammer for the reasons I presented earlier. I also think it's not newhammer, namely because it's an edition actually worth playing, but that's not really enough to qualify it as belonging to one era or another, is it?
>>
>>97599948
honestly it's not. It has little in common with 8th edition or AoS, which is Newhammer.
>I dont want it associated with 5th at all.
first of all who cares what you want? secondly, 6th not being Newhammer doesn't automatically mean it's in the same bracket as 5th. 5th and 6th were wildly different games, both in gameplay and aesthetic.
>>
>>
>>97599968
Then what about 7th? 7th is an iteration of 6th (a bad one, if you ask me) and it's not any closer to 8th than 6th is. Why is 7th newhammer if 6th isn't? Is 7th newhammer because the army books were stupid? Are we approaching this from a purely time-period perspective, or are we considering it from the perspective of living history, with a non-negligible amount of people playing 7th edition with 6th army books even to this very day? These are questions that should be answered, anon!
>>
>>97599970
I'm not the one proclaiming I want anything. You said
>I dont want it associated with 5th at all.
Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean it is. I don't even think that 5th and 6th should be associated as I mentioned in my earlier post, but using "I don't want them to be" is a poor argument for any topic.
>>97599967
Corporate ethos and gameplay. 6th edition was still developed and nurtured by hobbyists and enthusiasts of the game, though they now had a professional budget. It was the sweet spot. While 8th ed still had a small number of "old heads" on the team like Cavatore, by this point GW had much more influence on the design and development of the game. This can be seen in the changes to how the game actually works, like the pushing of hordes and big monsters to increase sales.
>>
>>97599978
I would argue 7th edition is Midhammer too but it was the turning point. Things like powercreep between army books and the beginning of pushing large centrepiece models started in 7th. So it was Midhammer with all the signs and seeds of Newhammer being planted. IMO the only true Midhammer WHF edition with no bullshit was 6th.
>>
>>
File: PXL_20240803_115905754.jpg (5.3 MB)
5.3 MB JPG
>>97600045
Actually as the person who came up with /grog/ as a name, that's why it's Oldhammer/Retro. All retro (GW particularly) is welcome.
People are playing all sorts of systems at Oldhammer events. We're not stuffy.
>>
File: Screen Shot 2025-11-12 at 1.49.22 PM.png (168.4 KB)
168.4 KB PNG
>>97597877
Wrong, middlehammer starts with 2nd edition 40k, 4th edition fantasy.
The defining characteristic which seperates oldhammer from everything which came after was the management buyout and the departure of Bryan Ansell, resulting in the exponentially increasing corporatization of the company and blandification of the games and associated figures to better appeal to the fabled "average consumer".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97599999
First and foremost, witnessed.
Second, referring to 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th WHFB as midhammer is really just diluting the definition of what midhammer is and doesn't accurately represent the shifts in game design, gameplay, marketing, etc. from 4th-5th -> 6th -> 7th. It's a big ol' mess! I think the problem is with the term midhammer itself. Oldhammer is fine, set in stone (rightfully so!) as 1st-3rd. The problem comes after that. Why can't we have an in-between category for 6th and 7th? Why do we have to arbitrarily separate out two editions that, setting aside the issue of 7th and its army books, are quasi-identical? Call it whatever you'd like, neo-midhammer, proto-newhammer, the calm before the storm, whatever, but I don't think it's right to have both 6th and 7th in the midhammer category and I don't think it's right to have 7th in the newhammer category either.
Furthermore, another anon mentioned 8th lasting a long time. In fact it's still being played to this very day with a lot of fan comp and errata and I think, if we are to judge every edition holistically with the full benefit of hindsight, there's a lot to be said about 8th being unfairly maligned. However, that's a separate point that can be discussed in another thread.
tldr: 7th isn't midhammer, but 6th isn't either! New category necessary!
>>
>>97598287
>>97598805
So, 3rd to 4th then. Well done anons, someone finally answered Op's question. We can spend the rest of the thread disrailing it, hurling insults or screaming "No, you are wrong!" at each other.
>>
File: IMG_2026-02-08_16-21-03(1).jpg (3.2 MB)
3.2 MB JPG
>>97602815
You fool, you absolute moron.
Bryan Ansell's stewardship of the company directly informed the mechanics of the game. When he left EVERYTHING was simplified, streamlined and dumbed down by the new corporate overlords. From the figures to the artwork to the rules, to even the layouts of the books, all aspects of warhammer were changed in an effort to better appeal to a younger more general audience. 2nd edition may be extremely rules heavy compared to 3rd, but it doesn't have half the granularity and detail of 1st edition/RT.
I play exclusively 1st/RT & 3rd edition WHFB. The mechanics of these games are extremely important to me, and what maintains my adherence to them just as much as the my preference for the figures of the era. I've tried the editions which succeeded them, and it felt like going from playing chess to playing checkers. Whether those games are fun or satisfying for you is a separate issue entirely, and I'm not saying they can't be fun, but from a mechanical perspective the change towards simpler, broader rules RELATIVE to the editions which preceded them is an even more obvious marker of the split between oldhammer and middlehammer than the more readily visible and often cited change in aesthetic style to the figures and books of the later editions.
>>
File: 1743290503704100.jpg (3.4 MB)
3.4 MB JPG
I just don't get why this guy feels so bad that 2nd edition isn't "Oldhammer" in the purest sense. Why does he need that label so badly for it?
The Venn diagram is nearly a circle for the overlap between the two.
Just go out and do and paint and play and enjoy lel.
>>
>>
>>
>>97604281
>the least talked about one
>the edition of Realm of Chaos and
>literally the game that spawned the Oldhammer movement
Even with the recent resurgence of 4th/5th (which practically nobody cared about before 2019) 3rd is still talked about several orders of magnitude more than the first 2 editions and I would hazard there is more interest in it than the awkward middle-child that is 7th.
>>
>>
Contrary to popular belief, Midhammer officially commenced in 2007 with the release of Apocalypse and the incorporation of superheavies into the core game, and ran until 7th Edition shit the bed.
Prior to that, Oldhammer is separated into early (Rogue Trader and 2nd edition 40k/4th edition WFB crossplay compatible rules) and late (3rd/4th edition 40k following the introduction of the Force Organization Chart but prior to mainline Superheavies and Flyers) periods. This is inclusive of the 2002 Horus Heresy CCG and Visions artbooks, but not the Forge World Black Books which are firmly midhammer release.
Nuhammer commenced with 8th Edition and the Primarisization of the Space Marine range. We are still in the nuhammer period, although there are recent indications of a possible Midhammer Revival thanks to recent nostalgia releases like Terminator Marneus Calgar and other similar 2000s throwbacks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: Captura de pantalla 2026-02-23 190825.png (37.4 KB)
37.4 KB PNG
Trying to translate the new TAU heroes to 4th edition because I have already played almost everything tau in this edition including imperial armour.
Any thoughts feedback?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97606264
>liking certain models but hating modern lore and recognising the rules have been irredeemable since 6th at the latest
As long as primaris is left out entirely, as long as flyers and superheavies are cordoned off from regular play, I'm all for backporting new units to actually good rulesets.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: qUyZbgH.png (2.7 MB)
2.7 MB PNG
>>97606264
Well Tau characters have been a mixed bag overall, and I already played all the profiles except the manta and remoras in 4th ed.
Aun va is point by point the worse profile of the game, aun shi was always cooler. Farsight is a point tax to field the crisis murder ball, and shadowsun is schizophrenic with short range weapons but no deep strike and a strange leadership aura.
O R'alay and O R'myr are cool even if overcosted.
I agree nu hammer is trash, hero hammer is lame. Primarchs are lame. But tau have always been kind of starved.
Anyway here you go a profile for a nameless stealth commander.
>>
>>97602896
My own categories go as such.
3rd: 80s
4th-5th: 90s
6th-7th: 00s
8th: 10s
Encapsulates it pretty well. Since the 90s were the peak of human culture those editions remain the best but the first half of the 00s were also good.
>>
>>
>>
File: wd1.jpg (198.4 KB)
198.4 KB JPG
I think part of the problem is that people don't realize that when people say only RT is Oldhammer, what they mean is basically everything from RT and back was Oldhammer. People forget that GW has a history going back the 70s.
>>
>>
File: GROG.jpg (1.7 MB)
1.7 MB JPG
>>97600045
As the OP of basically every /GROG/ thread ever bar like two of them; nah, 40k 3rd is fine.
6th ed. fantasy doesn't get covered though largely because well, people were still actively chatting about it elsewhere (especially before The Old World came along)
>>97604270
It is fucking weird. It's not like it delegitimizes it in any way.
>>97611073
Agreed.
>>
File: Screenshot_20250821-132908.png (917.4 KB)
917.4 KB PNG
Eye of Terror is the purest form of Midhammer, surely?
>>
File: 20220203_200736.jpg (1.2 MB)
1.2 MB JPG
>>97614527
It does. There is no real "protohammer" scene though outside of the kind of existing pre-slotta FB groups, I've maybe seen one guy collecting the Citadel Spacefarers range.
>>97615724
Middlehammer is normally associated the "red era" so it's actually too late, being in the following "grimdark era".
>>
>>
>>97604226
>I play exclusively 1st/RT
Then you know that game balance was nearly nonexistent, melee was usually not viable, the vehicle rules were completely unworkable, a GM was not really optional, and in a more enlightened era where we now know that another chart is not the answer, every new rule introduced as that version of the game matured (introduced by a magazine that may or may not have been available in your area before the internet as we know it existed, a problem that you fortunately will never have to deal with) brought with it at least one more chart, if not several. That "granularity" made it borderline unplayable.
I have some very pleasant memories of RT. It was my introduction to the hobby and will always have a special place in my heart. Whenever I drive through Manette, I never fail to glance wistfully at the storefront on the corner of Scott and 11th, and depending on who's with me, I regale them with the stories of what once was, and the shit that I went through to get there from several towns away when I wasn't old enough to drive and it was 1991. I'd even be willing to play it again, but it would be for old time's sake because if we're going to be totally honest here, as absolutely fucking cool as that was back then, it was, and remains, a bit janky. I won't make the argument that the changes that followed were necessarily good, but I will absolutely make the argument that changes were needed.
>>
>>
>>
>>97624013
If I recall correctly, the SRD was 99% done, with just some formatting and proofreading left to do.
Some guy started making a NewRecruit module using it, but I don't think that went anywhere. Which is a shame, because 4th, 5th, and 6th are the only editions of 40k without Battlescribe/NewRecruit support, and it'd be a lot easier to get new players interested in those editions if they could use the modern roster making software.
>>
>>97624013
>>97624355
Here's the last thread from the archive. Died with only 36 posts.
https://desuarchive.org/tg/thread/97278656/#97278656
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97597877
>OldHammer
Up to early 90s, WFB 1st-3rd, RT
>MidHammer
Up to early 00s, WFB 4th-5th, 40k 2nd-3rd
>NewHammer
Up to early 2010s, WFB 6th-7th, 40k 4th-5th
>NuHammer
Up to mid/late 2010s, WFB 8th, 40k 6th-7th
>DownfallHammer
Up to the present, AoS, 40k 8th+
That's the list, zoomers and newfags can cry all they want but that's what it is
>>
The Old/Mid split is easy, since you can mark it by Ansell leaving and selling his shares to Kirby in 1991, so the first editions after that (Fantasy 4E in '92, 40k 2E in '93) combined with GW going public in '94 quickly established the new 'era'
Maybe, in retrospect, Kirby getting ejected as CEO in 2015 should therefore be the end of Midhammer? Lines up nicely on the Fantasy side of it; you've got End Times then acting as the end of Midhammer Fantasy, with AoS acting as the Fantasy Nuhammer. Not as neat for 40k, although I suppose you could make the case that the later 7E campaigns (especially Warzone Fenris and Gathering Storm) marked the beginning of Nuhammer 40k
>>
>>97625329
Enough about Ansell. He wasn't some glorious saint. When he (and the other old timers) left, you saw something magical happen in White Dwarf. Suddenly it was young guys with a real enthusiasm for what they were doing and new ideas that weren't rooted in the '70's running the show. Early nineties GW was peak GW and it was precisely because the old guys that had created the company left it.
What happened later had nothing to do with him, but his leaving is not what fucked things up.
>>
Do you guys think there's a regional variation to this? I would think Warhammer communities were a lot better established in the UK in the oldhammer era (by any definition) than anywhere else. And there would be more clubs with continuity going back to that era in Europe in general than the more lgs-driven communities in the US. I think the presence or lack of players who also played during oldhammer as opposed to new grogs would colour opinions too. If your club/shop/playgroup or whatever have an oldhammer night that would for sure have influenced your view of what the definition is. "Oldhammer is what they play at oldhammer night" is probably the definition most people getting into this would defer to.
Not to be mean, but those of you claiming there's "one true definition", seem a bit overinvested. Especially if your definition of the newer era or eras are entirely derogatory. "Edition x to y is oldhammer because I like it and edition z and onward is shithammer because I don't like it" is a shit definition for everyone except you.
>>
>>
>>
>>97627647
>Not to be mean, but those of you claiming there's "one true definition", seem a bit overinvested.
It's whether you mean "Oldhammer" as just retro Warhammer, or the actual Oldhammer Community which has existed since like 2008 or so with a few "big" facebook groups, a forum, a blogosphere, meets at events of note like Bring Out Your Lead, et al
>>
>>
>>97628067
anyone would think The Oldhammer Community proper noun trademark started out as a conference of autists who sat down and defined Oldhammer whole cloth, and all those bloggers, event organisers and people that generally leave the house attached themselves later
>et al
retard
>>
>>97627493
>Enough about Ansell. He wasn't some glorious saint.
>but his leaving is not what fucked things up
I don't know where you got the impression that I considered Ansell leaving to be some horrible tragedy that ruined GW, I think GW's output was pretty great throughout the '90s and into the late '00s (frankly, I think Warhammer peaked with 6E Fantasy and 4E 40k). It was still a notable turning point, and there's a good reason why it's so commonly given as the split between one period of Warhammer and another
>>
>>97627493
>Suddenly it was young guys with a real enthusiasm for what they were doing and new ideas that weren't rooted in the '70's running the show. Early nineties GW was peak GW and it was precisely because the old guys that had created the company left it.
This is unassailably true, but it's not the argument you think it is - it simply extends the Oldhammer era into the 90s, because while there is a distinct vibe shift between 80s GW and 90s GW, it is not yet the decline of the Midhammer era typified by rules bloat, ever larger armies and the inclusion of gimmicky centerpiece models. If anything, the 3rd Edition shift from a percentage-based army composition scheme to the Force Organisation Chart ensured that armies of as few as eleven models remained the norm at all but the highest levels of play, and Battleforce boxes were competitive right out of the box.
You can argue that the Ansell era might in fact be a sort of proto-Oldhammer era before the game peaked, but that's not significantly different than >>97604731's contention that there are Early and Late Oldhammer periods prior to 5th Edition 40k and Apocalypse in 2007, when the decline set in and Midhammer as we recognize it today became the norm.
>>
>>97602896
>Why can't we have an in-between category for 6th and 7th
Because you only get 3 stages. You get Old, Middle, and New. Anything else overly complicates the structure. It's also why you have Gold, Silver, and Iron Age instead of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Electrum, Iron in the Classical Ages of history.
All of Midhammer is every edition that isn't Old or New. It's that simple. They are all part of one big time period.
>>
>>97597877
I'd divide 40k's edition to RT/2nd, 3rd-5th, 6th-7th, and 8th+. 6th and 7th edition are quite distinct from 3rd, 4th, and 5th, and saw the introduction of some of the trends that also show up in later editions, but mechanically they're still before the major rules changes like getting rid of armor values for vehicles, or the fluff timeskip and introduction of the Primaris.
>>
>>
>>97628996
Fair enough, but what exactly is the definition of Newhammer, then? We can agree (I hope) that Old is defined as 1st-3rd WHFB, but my point is that 6th and 7th specifically defy categorization per our current definitions. They don't belong alongside 4th and 5th in Middlehammer for reasons that I shouldn't need to explain, but they also don't belong alongside 8th in Newhammer because 6th is the golden child and 7th, despite its excesses, is essentially just 6th. What are we to do, anon!? The only way to resolve this without the creation of a fourth category is to place 6th and 7th alongside 8th and use the argument of aesthetics as justification for doing so, which would unfortunately result in said Newhammer triumvirate completely ignoring the drastic differences in gameplay and design that occurred between 6th, 7th, and 8th. Also, the very term "Newhammer" being implicitly negative complicates things. People like to assign 6th to Midhammer and 7th & 8 to Newhammerout of a belief that not-Newhammer = goodhammer, which is a gross oversimplification of this whole situation.
There is no clear solution, anon!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97630256
so? more time has elapsed between the release of 6th and TOW than the release of 6th and whf 1st edition, why cant we call 6th oldhammer then, its pretty fucking old
the division of warhammer periods is
>oldhammer
1st-5th
>midhammer
6th and 7th
>new/nuhammer
8th onwards
that's literally it, there's no need to complicate things, each era had their own vibes, 4th feels far closer to 1st in terms of vibes and admittedly 5th was kind of a bridge between old and mid but in terms of how it looked the tabletop and the fact that it was herohammer rather than the actual rank and flank game of later editions firmly puts it in the retro/oldhammer category
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97632305
Well the goal here is to see if there is agreement enough to start threads based on the definition. Otherwise the threads will just be arguing about what counts as midhammer, and not actually discussing the editions.