PDA

View Full Version : Anyone still playing 2nd edition?



stonehorse
25-11-2007, 22:43
I've recently started playing 2nd edition again, and I have to say it shows the current edition for what it is... an over simplified game that's more about who can roll the most dice as to actual tactics.

I had 2 games today and I can honestly say I had more fun playing these 2 games then I have had since 3rd edition came out.

The best thing about it now is that due to GW's trend to produce some very nice plastic kits, the armies for 2nd edition can now look amazing, and are now easily available. When I first started playing 2nd edition I hated the Ork models, now with the new models they'll look amazing,

The only problem is there arn't any codex's for Dark Eldar, Necrons, or Tau. Which means a lot of play testing ensures, which can bring out some horrors! But by the same token can be a fun experience.

Think there are a roughly 3 people at my local club who still play second edition, and I'm sure it won't be hard to convert people to what is a better edition, as a lot of people seem to be annoyed at the over simplifying GW are going through at the moment... the latest Chaos Codex seems to be the worst contender at the moment.

Of course this could all change when 5th edition comes out, I know a lot of people at my local club are seeing how this goes and if it turns out to be as bad as the current state of 40K are jacking in GW. This is a shame as their models and background is very nice.

I was wondering if anyone else on here is still playing 2nd edition, and how they feel their games compare to the current edition.

Vic
25-11-2007, 22:48
How many points did you run with? I have to say I didnt care for the old "hero hammer" edition of 40k, as well as the long time it took to get a game in. When I was a kid, time wasnt much of an issue, but now with a family and an active adult life, not so much. If you went above 2 squads and a few vehicles, the game fell on it's face. I like 4th, sure it could use some tweaking, but 2nd wasnt my cup of joe. If you got the time and are able to find all the add-ons and supplements to 2nd ed, and you can find the right people and the time to play, good luck to you then!

Now, thats not to say I got rid of my 2nd ed books and templates....

chivalrous
25-11-2007, 22:50
Oh god yes! Space Wolves and Necron Raiders and after the release of 3rd, I added a Dark Eldar force (using Eldar Rules form most things except for Raiders I used the Rules for Ork Truks with a Wave Serpent movement value) and slowly play-tested my own house rules for them.

I'm slowly, on a student budget, trying to collect all of the old codices and rule sets so I can start a 2nd edition campaign at Uni. It's not easy, there was an awful lot of things like wargear cards and datafaxes that were released as inserts in White Dwarf.

There were broken elements of second edition, Herohammer and some obscene pieces of wargear and close combat did need streamlining. But in no way shape or form did it need butchering to the extent of 3rd Edition.

stonehorse
25-11-2007, 22:53
I managed to play 2 2,000pts games in 5 hours.

Hero Hammer isn't an issue as I'm lucky enough to play with people who respect the concept of game balance. I can imagine some people aren't as lucky. I do recall playing previous games when it was the current edition and the sheer amount of abuse characters got was sickening.

I find it takes as much time as Warhammer Fatasy Battles to play, which is good. I want a game that is long and full of tactical plays... it helps convey the feel of a drawn out conflict better.

Malorian
25-11-2007, 22:58
Good luck playing a 8000 per side apoc with 2nd ed rules...

stonehorse
25-11-2007, 23:04
Oh god yes! Space Wolves and Necron Raiders and after the release of 3rd, I added a Dark Eldar force (using Eldar Rules form most things except for Raiders I used the Rules for Ork Truks with a Wave Serpent movement value) and slowly play-tested my own house rules for them.

I'm slowly, on a student budget, trying to collect all of the old codices and rule sets so I can start a 2nd edition campaign at Uni. It's not easy, there was an awful lot of things like wargear cards and datafaxes that were released as inserts in White Dwarf.

There were broken elements of second edition, Herohammer and some obscene pieces of wargear and close combat did need streamlining. But in no way shape or form did it need butchering to the extent of 3rd Edition.

Good luck with the Campaign. Funny you should mention Necrons. That's the force I used. If you want I can show you what I've managed to convert from the current Codex to 2nd edition... well everything apart from the C'tan as they'd be too powerful as they are Gods.


Good luck playing a 8000 per side apoc with 2nd ed rules...

I've tried Apoc and I'm not going to touch that one ever again, I just can't help shake the feeling that it is a poor sales stunt. So there will be zero desire from me and the players of 2nd edition of 40k to play Apoc.

Also as the points value in 2nd edition are roughly more then the current edition, 8,000pts wouldn't be as much, at a guess I'd say about 6,000pts.

Permanganate
25-11-2007, 23:36
I was about to make a smartass response along the lines of "yes, in our game we're working out our save mods and parries...wait, is it still 1998?" but was surprised to see that there are still a few people playing it.

What do you like about the system? I used to think it was overcomplicated for a system of that scale, and that it was better in a skirmish game like Necromunda. I prefer having more units (3E+) so that I can do more maneuvering, instead of it being more about the army selection and dice...

catbarf
25-11-2007, 23:43
instead of it being more about the army selection and dice...

That's exactly what 3E+ is. 2nd is a much better game in that regard.

Aaron
25-11-2007, 23:48
The problem with 2nd edition was all of the cards. I think most people have thrown out or lost the cards, so it's hard to go back and play it.

Having said that, I've had games of both 1st and 2nd edition in the past couple of years and had a lot of fun. I like the smaller but more detailed battles. It's easier to tell a story with the older rules and every unit suddenly has an identity.

I agree with the sentiment that it's a shame that GW decided to make such wholesale changes with the introduction of 3rd edition. 2nd edition had it's fair share of weaknesses and I warmly accepted 3rd edition as a breath of fresh air at the time. A few years playing it soon changed my mind though. 2nd edition only needed polishing to make it a great wargame.

cybertrophic
26-11-2007, 00:10
Good luck playing a 8000 per side apoc with 2nd ed rules...

More than once I played games with two or more armies at 10k+ points a side. Yes, it took a while, but I miss the depth in the rules - it had more in common with the Rogue Trader style of play and offered genuine differences between characters and armies. A lot of that has been lost and I miss it...

Permanganate
26-11-2007, 00:10
That's exactly what 3E+ is. 2nd is a much better game in that regard.

I don't believe that. While I didn't play that much 2E (I only got into Warhammer at WD217, and 3E came out WD235) there never seemed to be enough units on the board to have much choice about what to do with them. The boards were small, there weren't many units, and working out combat between even the ones you did have took forever. In 3E, I had ~2x as many units for the same length of game, and I could take a larger variety of units and maneuver them to most effectively defeat the enemy's line.

catbarf
26-11-2007, 00:26
I think you'll find that a majority of players here disagree. In 3rd onwards, you do have more units, but the whole game is simplified and all the flavor leached out. Sure, in 2nd you only have a couple squads, but since the game is on a very personal level you have plenty of options.

The problem with 3rd and 4th Eds. is that far too much of the game is determined when you make your list. Actual gameplay doesn't count nearly so much as having the right tools to kill your opponent.

scheppo
27-11-2007, 10:17
Good luck playing a 8000 per side apoc with 2nd ed rules...

Thats not, what 2nd is about. It`s a narrative skirmish game. And about Apoc being great for 10k battles: There is a system for huge battles, that you don`t have to spend thousands of dollars/euros/pounds on to play... it`s called epic.

Surely there were loads of things that could have been better in 2nd. Equipment should have been limited, Psi should have been nerved etc. But that would have been GWs Job, when they produced 3rd. Instead they gave us a halfbaked system, that took all the narrative elements out of the game.

TheLionReturns
27-11-2007, 11:47
I am a massive fan of 2nd edition. The current edition is quick, fun and easy. It is less about tactics, atmosphere and detail and the focus is on fun and there is nothing wrong with that. I, however, like the idea of a detailed skirmish game so thats why my preference is for 2nd edition. It is important though to play against the right people. There are balance issues. Herohammer is a definite problem if abused for example. For me though it didn't just feel like i was throwing dice at my opponent, and I always felt like I had more options. The armies were all different, and the challenge far more varied.

The fact that there were less units was a plus for me. 40K is a skirmish game, epic is the proper "war" game. Current 40K seems a bizarre attempt to combine these, and apocalypse seems even stranger, despite I'm sure being great fun.

I think what it boils down to for me is that the beauty of 40K is in the great models and great background. Detailed games like 2nd edition help bring this to life on a character level for me, whilst epic meets my needs for large scale tactical confrontations. 2nd edition enhanced these positives, current 40k blunts them for me.

The one biggest drawback is that 2nd edition is not even remotely tournament compatible and a return to this would do serious damage to the tournament scene. Personally I would love to see a tournament version of 40K like now and a more detailed version with movement, grenades, armour modifiers, new combat rules etc for casual play. This would also give players options if they are time limited as well as providing an easy entry point. It seems however, that GW want one basic game mechanic plus additional rules a la cityfight and apocalypse instead.

reds8n
27-11-2007, 12:03
I'm lucky enough to play with people who respect the concept of game balance.


Perhaps you'd have more luck planning and playing an Apocalypse game with these people then ?:p



The problem with 3rd and 4th Eds. is that far too much of the game is determined when you make your list. Actual gameplay doesn't count nearly so much as having the right tools to kill your opponent
HA! NOt like in second edition where everyone spent 50% of their points on rock hard HQ choices, techmarines on bikes to ram vehicles and characters with jump packs and vortex grenades on suicide runs.

And the overwatch rules pretty much negated any tactical movement.

Aaron
27-11-2007, 12:16
Good luck playing a 8000 per side apoc with 2nd ed rules...

The battle report from White Dwarf issue 186 must have been at least 8,000 points a side. It is certainly one of the most inspiring battle reports I've ever read.

alex03
27-11-2007, 12:19
I LOVED 2nd edition, but lets face it, it had its flaws as well. Most games were basicly stand in cover and shoot. Movement was slow and transports were never taken, being even more of a deathtrap than they are now (a big feat in itself).

I remember jumping my assault marines throwing blind gernades. Jump out. Roll scatter for the jumpers. Throw gernade. Ok roll to hit. Roll scatter. Place lots o' cotton. Repeat 10x. Next turn roll on chart for each blind gernade template. Roll scatter. Took forever.

Saying that I would love to get my hands on a second edition rules set, and the dark melenuim set that you needed as well.

Grindgodgrind
27-11-2007, 12:34
I grew up with 2nd edition, it's what I started out playing. Sure, the models weren't brilliant, but they are now. I'm going to be setting up a game using 2nd edition rules against my mates 'nids, and I can't wait.

Malorian
27-11-2007, 13:02
The battle report from White Dwarf issue 186 must have been at least 8,000 points a side. It is certainly one of the most inspiring battle reports I've ever read.

However I'm sure the WD team took a LONG time to get that game done, and that's with people that know every rule inside and out.

Don't get me wrong, I like more rules and more options, we just have to all realize that with it being more complicated it will take much more time to play. I played my 8000 apoc in 4 hours (6 turns), and I'm sure if we had used 2nd ed rules we would have been there the entire day if not the weekend.

Col.Gravis
27-11-2007, 13:06
Yep, still indulge in the odd game now and again, it's brilliant just for reminissing and of course skirmish level, that said having played a few mega games back in the day (i.e 10,000pts+ a side) I'd never again play it on that scale, we spent whole weekends at it lol

Coragus
27-11-2007, 13:26
Any time you take a human endeavor and convert it to an abstract miniature game, you're going to lose something in the translation. Having said that, current 40K is much more of a cartoon than 2nd E was. GW could have fixed the Herohammer problems of 2nd E without throwing out the realistic features that 40K now lacks.

Why can't I throw a hand grenade? Why can't soldiers go into overwatch? Does every member of every army in every race really move the same rate? A little bit more realism without created "Papers and Paychecks" would be nice.

Polonius
27-11-2007, 13:33
The way I see it, 2nd edition is like a giant set of house rules. If you know and trust the guys you're playing with, they work out amazingly well. You know you won't have 997pts of space wolf Heros in a 2000pt game, you know that if you draw a bad mission you can redraw, and you know that everybody will play as swiftly as possible.

I think it's cool that people use house rules, and I think it's cool that people still use 2nd edition if they prefer it. From what I've heard, my IG would be awesome in 2nd edition, so maybe if I'm lucky I'll get to play a game some day. Until then, I'm stuck with 4th edition.

I mentioned house rules and gaming clubs because from everything I've heard, 2nd edition could be a nightmare in pick up games, but very customizable for set peice battles.

pookie
27-11-2007, 13:35
ah i only wish i knew people who would play 2nd edition!

Me and a old gaming buddy when 3rd ed cam out actually played with 2nd ed rules with the new codexs etc, im no longer in contact with him so my gaming is somewhat stale at the mo.

Captain Micha
27-11-2007, 13:39
Wha, you mean rulehammer?

scheppo
27-11-2007, 13:46
The rules were perfect for skirmish games. And you always could drop detail and use restrictions to make the game quicker.

Captain Micha
27-11-2007, 13:48
but that's what 40k is now. is a skirmish.

Agrip. Varenus Denter
27-11-2007, 13:56
I know one fellow vet that I can actually play 2nd edition with, and we do so every so often for kicks. But as far as anyone else? Nope. I really don't mind so much, though - it's fun every once in a while, but I wouldn't want to do it more than that.

scheppo
27-11-2007, 13:57
but that's what 40k is now. is a skirmish.

No. Skirmish games do not require an army to have 40 Minis and a tank to even think about starting to play (IG). Have you ever played 2nd?

Captain Micha
27-11-2007, 14:00
no but the engagements of 40k are quite small, at least given the context of the fluff. Thus a skirmish.

Haven't played and never want to either. Why so many dice rolls for -one- weapon? sheesh.

scheppo
27-11-2007, 14:10
Well, I think 4th and 2nd just do different things. 2nd is very detailed and the rules are created to tell a story, in which every unit plays its own part.
4th allows to play bigger games in less time and is abstract, where gameflow demands it. I think both do their thing rather good. Maybe comparing them doesn`t do either one justice.

Angelwing
27-11-2007, 14:24
No. I still play necromunda now and again though. I miss some elements like anti plant missiles and ramming from 2nd ed, but not others like models on fire, blind grenades and overwatch.

Mister Hat
27-11-2007, 14:38
Haven't played it for years, but look back on it fondly. 4th is missing a level of complexity and richness that I really want.

Ahh, fond memories of my RTB01 beaky marines fighting against the dreadful Orks from the Space Ork boxed set.

My 6-yr old son is now the proud owner of the RTB01 marines and is slowly reducing them to their constituent parts. Thank God for glue.

pookie
27-11-2007, 14:50
Haven't played and never want to either. Why so many dice rolls for -one- weapon? sheesh.

IMO Realism.

as you havent played i can understand why you dont know, but 2nd ed was imo a much more detailed version of 40K than 3/4 ed.

to give you an example as to why it was more a skirmish game than what 4ed is, in 2nd ed a tac sqaud cost approx twice as much as current points value, so in a real sence you had less minis meaning it was a more 'skirmish' type game, i can now in a 2000 pts BT force have around 60 BT but back in the day id be lucky to get 40 Marines in that force ( 4 sqauds costing a base value 1200pts before upgrades etc).

scheppo
27-11-2007, 15:09
... which represented Marines being elite pretty well. A tac squad guard for example cost 100 Points before upgrades. So you can imagine what a tactical squad marines could do to normal troops.

the_raptor
27-11-2007, 15:11
no but the engagements of 40k are quite small, at least given the context of the fluff. Thus a skirmish.

Small? You can get most of a battle company in an average 4th ed game. That is not a skirmish.

Many of the things in 2nd ed where more "realistic", but they didn't really make sense given the scale of the game. A prime example being LOS arcs.

You could make 4th ed much better by bringing back to-hit (not per weapon, but maybe WHFB style) and armour save mods. They have to put so many stupid hacks into 4th ed to get this effect that it is silly. Also LOS blocking with units, tanks being able to engage multiple targets etc.

Captain Micha
27-11-2007, 15:11
but a tactical squad costs 150 now. :p

UncleCrazy
27-11-2007, 15:14
I played 2nd ed and don't think it was that great. Normally it was a cheesy feist. In 2nd ed who ever was playing SM and got the first turn won. Cyclone Missile doom would wipe out half your army long before you even got to play. Virus outbreak and Nid Events.... I don't like losing before the game starts. You also need to remember that even hiding behind a wall or building could not save you from shooting. I remember killing my friend's chaos lord whlle it was in a build with the door shut with one shoot from a Vindacare. Assassins for the win. I remember another friend throwing Grenades at the ground and hoping they would scatter so they could hit a target that they did not know was there. And Vortex........ God I hated Vortex. No 2nd ed was the Cheesiest of all the eds. If you like Cheese play it.

ChaosMaster
27-11-2007, 15:15
Since none of the Codex books, point values, etc. designed for the 3rd and 4th edition releases are designed to work with 2nd edition, I don't see any way you could continue to play 2nd edition without it being horribly broken unless you also use only 2nd edition Codex books.

I've played 40K since Rogue Trader and with all its current rules problems, I still wouldn't want to go back to playing 2nd edition which had even more rules nightmares in it than the current version. Besides, 2nd edition is not compatible with Cities of Death or Apocalypse, the two best expansions for 40K ever.

scheppo
27-11-2007, 15:25
I remember killing my friend's chaos lord whlle it was in a build with the door shut with one shoot from a Vindicare. Assassins for the win.

Dude! That must have been a modifier of about -8. You were pretty lucky.

Katastrophe
27-11-2007, 15:27
Actually we play 2nd edition rules using the 3/4 ed books all the time. It actually works great. There are a few changes that need to be made in the actual rules to make the game faster (such as some changes to overwatch). If you do a search for Advanced 40K on this site you will see lots of times that players have either redone the 2nd rules or modified the 3/4th rules in order to make it work like an amalgam of 2-4

pookie
27-11-2007, 16:11
but a tactical squad costs 150 now. :p

which is cool in 4ed, in a 2000 pt force you can fit in APPROX 10 sqds plus HQ.

now in 2nd edition it would have been 6 squads plus HQ almost have a compay of marines.

still think its Skirmish in 4ed?

honestly the 3/4ed was 'Dumbed' down, made to be more main stream and i suppose easier to play ( well less complicated ).

Aaron
27-11-2007, 16:32
I agree with what people have been saying - there was a lot of crap in 2nd edition that I never want to see return. That includes all of the cloud effects, vortex grenades, page upon page of tables, overwatch (in 2nd edition form), etc.

That said, the basic mechanics were very solid. Games were usually played on 8'x4' tables and armies contained less models. That, combined with firing arcs and individual movement values, made manoeuvring much more important than 3rd/4th edition. I also loved that it was possible to make a mobile shooty army, rather than the gunline tactics that plague some 3rd/4th edition armies.

ChaosMaster
27-11-2007, 16:35
...there was a lot of crap in 2nd edition that I never want to see return. That includes all of the cloud effects, vortex grenades, page upon page of tables, overwatch (in 2nd edition form), etc.
You can say that again!

Emperor's Grace
27-11-2007, 17:37
The problem with 2nd edition was all of the cards. I think most people have thrown out or lost the cards, so it's hard to go back and play it.

Actually, I think I still have my cards/datafax/templates from 2nd ed.

If anyone's interested, let me know in a PM and I'll try to dig them up.

stonehorse
27-11-2007, 19:13
ah i only wish i knew people who would play 2nd edition!

Me and a old gaming buddy when 3rd ed cam out actually played with 2nd ed rules with the new codexs etc, im no longer in contact with him so my gaming is somewhat stale at the mo.

I see you are also based in Leeds. As I said when I started the Thread I've just got back into 2nd edition... if you ever want a game, you should come down to the club that is linked in my signature.

I'm thinking of using the FOC from the current codexs, but with the old codex rules. This way it can stop Herohammer.

Rikens
27-11-2007, 19:17
If you think 2nd edition is a more tactical game than 4th edition, and that 4th edition is just about rolling dice, then you're a weak 4th edition player. That is all.

catbarf
27-11-2007, 19:47
Way to make a convincing statement that hasn't said before, and you sure backed it up with tons of supporting evidence.

2nd Edition had big issues. I had loads of bad games in 2nd Ed. But I wouldn't trade my good games of 2nd for anything in the world.

Now, I get less bad games, but very few of the truly memorable ones.

TheMartyr451
27-11-2007, 19:53
I still have the original box set, all the codexes, and dark millenium.:)

stonehorse
27-11-2007, 20:01
If you think 2nd edition is a more tactical game than 4th edition, and that 4th edition is just about rolling dice, then you're a weak 4th edition player. That is all.

Erm... ok, thanks for sharing the insightful awesomeness of your mind.

I enjoy 4th edition for what it is. A pick up and play game system, that require little effort of brain work to get a fun game.

However... the veteran gamer in me loves complex systems, that provide more scope other than move, shoot, assault, rinse, and repeat.

Flame Boy
27-11-2007, 20:08
The battle report from White Dwarf issue 186 must have been at least 8,000 points a side. It is certainly one of the most inspiring battle reports I've ever read.

Is that the huge tank battle between Space marines and rebel guard led by the rogue psycher? (Lord Varlak, wasn't it?) I seem to remember it was the first battle report with the Leman Russ Demolisher in, and it made a huge mess. I also remember a landspeeder squadron swooping in and vaporising Varlak with a Multi-Melta while he tried to escape. That was a great battle report, if it's the one I remember.

I found 2nd edition was prone to it's flaws, but we were kids at the time. I'm sure I wouldn't be wading through a carpet of regenerating Carnifexes on the "Tyranid Attack" mission anymore. I guess the "without number" and Nidzilla lists are the closest you get to that these days.

Oh, and I was an entirely shooty Blood Angel player. Death Company, but no assault squads. Can you believe it? Probably not, in the light of their semi-bezerker ways in recent editions. :p

Durath
27-11-2007, 20:13
I started playing 2nd edition a month after it came out. I grew up in the 40k world surrounded by Exarchs, Avatars, Bloodthirsters, and Assault Cannons.

"Hero-hammer" is definately an accurate term to apply to 2nd edition. You could have called it "Terminator-Hammer" too (god I miss those 3+ 2D6 armor saves).

The Dark Millenium expansion was the best thing released by GW ever. In fact, the entire Psychic system, whilst bogging play down a little, was the icing on the 40k cake that made that edition a ton of fun to play. I mean, how can you not enjoy a game that has a giant foot-print for a psychic power? Its funny how Apoc is a similar thing for 4th ed.

I feel the 2nd edition just needed some fine-tuning and it would have been playable and balanced (Eldar needed some serious reigning in tho).

Daemonslave
27-11-2007, 20:17
From my own personal experience, I have found that 3rd/4th Ed were more balanced and efficient systems, but 2nd ed was far more fun. The sheer randomness of some things made it great. I remember a game in which I lost badly, my Land Raider was hit by a Lascannon and destroyed it flipped up in a random direction and landed upon Abaddon and his bodyguard, killing him and three of them, plus the Khorne Berzerkers I had on board. Although I cried at the time, it was a great memory.

I would love it if Games Workshop created an alternative ruleset for us who still yearn for 2nd ed. They could use the same models/characters but have a second set of rules similar to 2nd ed (but with the obvious flaws sorted out). i.e. 40k Classic, or something. (It's never going to happen, but it's a nice thought).

Lexington
27-11-2007, 20:23
Like Aaron, I thought 3rd Edition was a godsend upon its arrival, but have come to respect the hoary old crunchiness of 2nd Edition. It simply had a better baseline set of rules. On the whole, it seems a whole lot simpler and tactically useful to have a movement value that I know will be halved by moving through cover, rather than reduced by a random die roll. Similarly, units that move faster than others should have an increased set movement, not another random die roll. If you're shooting at someone, you should have a reduced chance to hit them in cover, rather than have your shot blocked by some 'cover save.' In the end, yes, they're just different means to the same end, but 2nd Edition's basic rules for getting to that end were more pleasing and elegant than the bulky, random creature that 3rd/4th evolved into.

(and, yes, I know the Codexes had big problems - fix those, not the system)

catbarf
27-11-2007, 20:27
I still have the original box set, all the codexes, and dark millenium.:)

My hobby store has a complete box set and shrink-wrapped Dark Millennium we're trying to sell online. And believe it or not, no buyers.

Aaron
27-11-2007, 20:27
Is that the huge tank battle between Space marines and rebel guard led by the rogue psycher? (Lord Varlak, wasn't it?) I seem to remember it was the first battle report with the Leman Russ Demolisher in, and it made a huge mess. I also remember a landspeeder squadron swooping in and vaporising Varlak with a Multi-Melta while he tried to escape. That was a great battle report, if it's the one I remember.

Yeah, that's the one. They don't write them like that these days. :)

scheppo
27-11-2007, 20:32
My hobby store has a complete box set and shrink-wrapped Dark Millennium we're trying to sell online. And believe it or not, no buyers.

:eyebrows: What exactly do they charge?

Rikens
27-11-2007, 20:45
Way to make a convincing statement that hasn't said before, and you sure backed it up with tons of supporting evidence. Would it make a difference? If I showed you the results of a conclusive study published in a major peer-reviewed journal you'd still brush it off. That's what I like about W40k players, they have such healthy self-esteem. "I've lost again? It must be the army! Down with GW!" or "Jst becase Im ilitirat dont mean I cant reed teh rools!"

I love you guys!

catbarf
27-11-2007, 20:49
:eyebrows: What exactly do they charge?

$40 apiece, plus shipping.


Would it make a difference? If I showed you the results of a conclusive study published in a major peer-reviewed journal you'd still brush it off. That's what I like about W40k players, they have such healthy self-esteem. "I've lost again? It must be the army! Down with GW!" or "Jst becase Im ilitirat dont mean I cant reed teh rools!"

You just come in and proclaim something we've heard before to be fact, with no reasoning supporting it. There are plenty of people here who have already explained why 2nd Ed. was, in their opinion, better- or at least more fun than the drudgery of today.

TzeentchForPresident
27-11-2007, 20:55
Not anymore, but 1st and 2nd edition was in a way a better way to get into the hobby because the rules of those editions was made for smaller armies so the collect and paint an army part, was done faster back then. Playing the game for bad or good took up more time :p

Those early editions certainly had their charms. However I don´t miss the "overwatch rule", was it the 2nd edition? It made battles so damn static.

Rikens
27-11-2007, 21:11
You just come in and proclaim something we've heard before to be fact, with no reasoning supporting it. There are plenty of people here who have already explained why 2nd Ed. was, in their opinion, better- or at least more fun than the drudgery of today. And equally I have no reason to think their opinion is accurate or even valid. Plenty more people seem to have explained why 4th edition was better and more fun than the dudgery of 2nd edition. I played 2nd edition for a few years and then quit after getting sick of how slow and dull it was. I enjoy not only the speed at which 4th plays, but the larger and more interesting set of tactical problems that 4th presents with regard to manouevre and co-ordinating fire. I would never go back.

The odd thing, of course, is that the fan-emphasis has over-whelmingly become about lists over the edition changes, which I find really odd since the game increasing favours players who do tactically useful things with what they have rather than people that rely on their uber-list sitting back and rolling the right dice. I blame the Internet for homogenizing people's opinions (which may be ironic considering its beneficial effect on painting!).

mark.k
27-11-2007, 21:20
I've recently

The only problem is there arn't any codex's for Dark Eldar, Necrons, or Tau. Which means a lot of play testing ensures, which can bring out some horrors! But by the same token can be a fun experience.

gw did make dark eldar codex for 2nd ed look here

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Eldar-Codex-2nd-Edition-48-pages_W0QQitemZ280177189697QQihZ018QQcategoryZ4411 9QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

2nd ed fan here :)

Orion the Lost
27-11-2007, 21:21
I don't think I could talk my current group into it, even if I still had all the rules. But, that's why I'm enjoying Apocalypse. It allows a little bit of that second ed. feel and fun without all the bad things. I would definitely play again though, if nothing else for nostalgia purposes.

I found some of the psychic cards just the other day, and the cardboard building corners from the rules box. They came in handy when my group played the other day. Anybody want to use the cardboard cutout ork dred. I found that too. Ha!:D

I do miss it sometimes, even if I may have been guilty of "Herohammer". I was the first on my block to get the Space Wolves codex. Mmmm... Ragnar on combat drugs:cheese:

IJW
27-11-2007, 21:41
gw did make dark eldar codex for 2nd ed look here

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Eldar-Codex-2nd-Edition-48-pages_W0QQitemZ280177189697QQihZ018QQcategoryZ4411 9QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
That's a mis-labelled auction for a 3rd ed codex. The giveaway is the way it has the same cover as the DE codex that you can find on the shelves in today's GW stores...

TheMartyr451
27-11-2007, 21:45
My hobby store has a complete box set and shrink-wrapped Dark Millennium we're trying to sell online. And believe it or not, no buyers.

:confused:
Why is no one buying that???
I'd buy it if I didn't have it already.

silence
27-11-2007, 21:53
I play it occasionally, and really enjoy the odd game, but i'm not sure I would want to go back to it all the time with players I did not know as it's even more open to abuse than the new ed.

stonehorse
27-11-2007, 22:04
Would it make a difference? If I showed you the results of a conclusive study published in a major peer-reviewed journal you'd still brush it off.

Can you provide a link to this study?

Or does such a study only exist as an example of just how invalid our opinions are next to your opinions...

The only army that has to use advanced tactics in the current climate of 40K is Dark Eldar and that is due to their fragile nature, but even then it's a one trick army.

cybertrophic
27-11-2007, 22:13
i think 2nd edition was nice for skirmishes.

but let anyone take a Ork army with loads of boys facing a hellhound, and you spend the whole night randomizing where orks on flames were running off to. Or let a unit of orks charge a unit of gaunts.....

it might be cool though to have character 1 on 1 fights use the 2nd edition rules when you play 4th edition.

But that was the fun of it - seeing an eldar Avatar get taken out by a base of snotlings (yup, it happened), or the utterly Orky and amusingly unreliable Shokk Attack Gun (great when it worked, but just as likely to demolish your own side) - they were in character with the armies. Nowadays I struggle to see any true distinction between the races, apart from the flavour of the month rules that push whatever is Teh Next Most Uber Thing. Baneblades this month, no doubt whatever is in the warehouse and isn't selling next month.

In the days of 2nd and 3rd edition, yes you could get spanked by IG artillery and Orks tended to run around crazily doing not much apart from crashing, catching fire and getting shot, but that was all part of the fun - who gave a rat's ass if you won or lost, as long as you and your friends had fun and it all felt right as part of the game universe. Yes, the rules weren't perfect, but they worked far better in creating a living, breathing world to play in than the sanitised, idiot-proof dumbed-down 4th and 5th edition rules. In those days you had half the miniatures on the table as an Ork player did if you had a Marine army, if not less. It was like Zulu every time and you learned to fight hard and get tactical. The "streamlined" rules took all that away. They took all the fun away in lieu of balancing the game for win-at-all-cost kiddies (or, the tournament anoraks who haven't got any friends and find their only joy in the dismal existence they lead is in crushing 12 year-olds at game tournaments, for that matter).

The sad thing is that what drew the people into the game in the first place was the miniatures and the cool universe, not the fact you could beat a friend. Hell, if that's all you wanted to do, buy a deck of cards, play snap and save £300 on an army....

Ronin_eX
27-11-2007, 22:18
I still have all my 2nd Edition stuff and I still get the occasional game in. For me 4th edition is a Beer & Pretzels battle game (that many models and that little detail plus easy access to loads of vehicles can't really be called a 'skirmish' game) that is fun to set some models down in and roll dice at each other while socializing. 2nd Edition is just as fun to play (if not more so due to all the random stuff that can happen) and has an even better set of rules to back it up. The trick is to know how you should be playing the game. The biggest complaints I see are that the game took too long and that overwatch was overpowered.

The usual reason the game was long is because many people played games that were 3000+ points. If you look at most modern TTGs you will notice that most have an "optimal" point limit. In Warmachine this is usually 500-1000. Infinity seems to work best between 150-300. All editions of Warhammer 40,000 have worked best between 1500-2000 points. In 2nd edition most things tended to cost more so armies tended to be half as large (my current DA army is around 12,000 points in 2nd Edition but only 6,000 in 4th). So now the amount of models people would field in a 4,000 point 40k game would be within the usual 1500-2000 range that was the standard. The funny thing was that at 1,500 points a game of 2nd Edition was actually quite quick to play as the system was optimized for smaller games (the system was also better downwardly scalable than 3rd or 4th Edition). So 2nd was bloody slow if you used as many models in 40k as we do today but if people had played it more at standard point levels then they would have found that the detail was a strength as opposed to a detriment.

As for the issue with overwatch I find that many people seemed to skip over Andy Chamber's notes in the rule book. His advice was "the more terrain, the better the game" and most people tended to leave their fields of battle bare. This caused overwatch stalemates as it was hard for forces not to be able to draw a bead on the opposing army. If people used more than 30% coverage (more is even better and my group used 50% coverage as a minimum) on their table then they would find that it was better to keep moving and seize their objectives (you did use the randomized objectives didn't you? If not then no wonder the game devolved into a shoot-out).

Now I'm all for playing the game your own way but blaming the system for user error is one of the reasons GW threw the baby out with the bath water and re-built everything for 3rd Edition instead of fixing the problems in 2nd Edition (and it certainly had a few). Mainly they needed to fix the close combat system (though strangely it was a prime limiting factor to why characters weren't as powerful in 2nd as many seem to think, spending 300 points on someone to have them kill a model a turn tends to be a bad return after all) and possibly streamline the vehicle system (a unified chart for vehicle types instead of individual Datafaxes would have been good) as well as the psychic phase and it would have been well on its way to perfection (still needed alternating unit activation though). I wish GW had fixed things instead of thrown them out, but I'm liking what I'm seeing in 4th Edition so far, unfortunately it is still no 2nd Edition. Fortunately GW haven't burned all the older editions of 40k and I can still play 2nd as much as I'd like to.

cybertrophic
27-11-2007, 22:23
I play it occasionally, and really enjoy the odd game, but i'm not sure I would want to go back to it all the time with players I did not know as it's even more open to abuse than the new ed.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this post sums up the problem with GW and GW gamers who think the old way was "too complex", "too unbalanced" and "not designed for tournament play". It wasn't too complex - it was flexible enough to allow you to do what you wanted to do, not prescriptive and dull like the new rules. If you play with someone in the "win at all costs" mindset, you'll never enjoy any game like this.

It wasn't unbalanced - it was designed to give different feels to different races - orks were dumb, fun and plentiful, IG weak, but backed up with huge artillery, Marines kill-tastic, but limited in number, etc. Now everything must be equal in case the tournament fetishists whinge, but they just killed the fun out of it.

I think I won maybe 20% of the games I played with my old Orks under 2nd edition, but I loved every game as there was a lot of fun to be had with a large Evil Sunz army. The Space Wolves I had were more successful, but their limited numbers meant that I had to learn to play more tactically - using terrain more, etc. 4th edition (well, and 3rd edition, too, I guess) totally killed the depth to the game in order to try and chase the kiddie market, because GW failed to see that their core were the people who had been with them for years, not the kids who wanted Sega Saturns and Playstations at the time. In order to chase a market sector that was dwindling (how many 12 year olds out there would choose to play 40k over their new PS3 now?) they screwed their long-time customers by wrecking the rules and systematically forcing upgrades/re-buys of miniatures (anyone remember the marine plasma pistol fiasco?).

Anyone who truly believes that 4th edition raped the 40k rules, universe and existing players the way it did for any reason other than to try and get into the kids market is sorely mistaken....

cybertrophic
27-11-2007, 22:27
I still have all my 2nd Edition stuff and I still get the occasional game in. For me 4th edition is a Beer & Pretzels battle game (that many models and that little detail plus easy access to loads of vehicles can't really be called a 'skirmish' game) that is fun to set some models down in and roll dice at each other while socializing. 2nd Edition is just as fun to play (if not more so due to all the random stuff that can happen) and has an even better set of rules to back it up. The trick is to know how you should be playing the game. The biggest complaints I see are that the game took too long and that overwatch was overpowered.

The usual reason the game was long is because many people played games that were 3000+ points. If you look at most modern TTGs you will notice that most have an "optimal" point limit. In Warmachine this is usually 500-1000. Infinity seems to work best between 150-300. All editions of Warhammer 40,000 have worked best between 1500-2000 points. In 2nd edition most things tended to cost more so armies tended to be half as large (my current DA army is around 12,000 points in 2nd Edition but only 6,000 in 4th). So now the amount of models people would field in a 4,000 point 40k game would be within the usual 1500-2000 range that was the standard. The funny thing was that at 1,500 points a game of 2nd Edition was actually quite quick to play as the system was optimized for smaller games (the system was also better downwardly scalable than 3rd or 4th Edition). So 2nd was bloody slow if you used as many models in 40k as we do today but if people had played it more at standard point levels then they would have found that the detail was a strength as opposed to a detriment.

As for the issue with overwatch I find that many people seemed to skip over Andy Chamber's notes in the rule book. His advice was "the more terrain, the better the game" and most people tended to leave their fields of battle bare. This caused overwatch stalemates as it was hard for forces not to be able to draw a bead on the opposing army. If people used more than 30% coverage (more is even better and my group used 50% coverage as a minimum) on their table then they would find that it was better to keep moving and seize their objectives (you did use the randomized objectives didn't you? If not then no wonder the game devolved into a shoot-out).

Now I'm all for playing the game your own way but blaming the system for user error is one of the reasons GW threw the baby out with the bath water and re-built everything for 3rd Edition instead of fixing the problems in 2nd Edition (and it certainly had a few). Mainly they needed to fix the close combat system (though strangely it was a prime limiting factor to why characters weren't as powerful in 2nd as many seem to think, spending 300 points on someone to have them kill a model a turn tends to be a bad return after all) and possibly streamline the vehicle system (a unified chart for vehicle types instead of individual Datafaxes would have been good) as well as the psychic phase and it would have been well on its way to perfection (still needed alternating unit activation though). I wish GW had fixed things instead of thrown them out, but I'm liking what I'm seeing in 4th Edition so far, unfortunately it is still no 2nd Edition. Fortunately GW haven't burned all the older editions of 40k and I can still play 2nd as much as I'd like to.

I have to fair - this is an excellent, well-reasoned post. I always loved huge batles and didn't need Apocalypse to begin doing them, but I always made sure there was a ton of scenery around whatever the points level - it made the games more fun. I think half the problem is that newbies go to a GW store play a demo game on a 6x3 table with nothing on it and think that's how it's done.

catbarf
27-11-2007, 22:47
My $.02- anyone who points out that 2nd Ed. was not good for tournament play has missed the entire point and should return to Falcon/Asscan/Harlie spam.

scheppo
27-11-2007, 22:48
Mainly they needed to fix the close combat system (though strangely it was a prime limiting factor to why characters weren't as powerful in 2nd as many seem to think, spending 300 points on someone to have them kill a model a turn tends to be a bad return after all) and possibly streamline the vehicle system (a unified chart for vehicle types instead of individual Datafaxes would have been good) as well as the psychic phase and it would have been well on its way to perfection (still needed alternating unit activation though). I wish GW had fixed things instead of thrown them out, but I'm liking what I'm seeing in 4th Edition so far, unfortunately it is still no 2nd Edition. Fortunately GW haven't burned all the older editions of 40k and I can still play 2nd as much as I'd like to.

Damn right! 40k would be a better system if they went this way...

Ronin_eX
27-11-2007, 23:32
My $.02- anyone who points out that 2nd Ed. was not good for tournament play has missed the entire point and should return to Falcon/Asscan/Harlie spam.

You sir are absolutely correct and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter (definition: QFT). Despite all the talk of tournament play no edition of 40k has ever actually been suited to it (so say the designers incidentally). 40k was always meant to be fun and played between friends. I think this mentality has, unfortunately, died in the current editions of 40k. So much of the fun and creativity seem to be missing lately (though I like the new codices as they give me close to the same liscence to create whatever the hell I want as some of the 2nd Edition codices). The point of the game is to have fun and I think this deserves a posting of an article posted on another forum.

From RPGNet, Original Poster: unheilig

Just replace the word "Go" with any game (Warhammer 40,000 in this instance).


The Empty Board

Partners vs. Opponents

by William Cobb

The person you play against in a game of Go is obviously your opponent. You must do your best to win, which means trying to defeat the other player, who is opposing that aim. At the same time, you, of course, are the other player's opponent, working for the opposite of the other's victory.

But it is also obvious that there are important ways in which the other player is not your opponent. Without the other player's cooperation, you can't play the game at all. Playing the game requires a complex mutual agreement that makes possible a joint activity that neither can engage in alone.

Opponents are usually also partners. Surprisingly, this is true even of war. You can destroy the other, but you can't have a fight with the other unless the other decides to cooperate by resisting. This is one of the reasons why, in traditional Japanese culture, both children are punished when a fight breaks out. Who started it is not the crucial point; learning not to opt for certain types of behavior is.

In the case of Go, the role of partner is more significant than in most competitions, and thinking about the other player as your partner, rather than only as your opponent, brings out some of the essential qualities of Go. Virtually anyone can function as an opponent, but certain requirements must be met in order to be a plausible partner. A partner is much more than someone who opposes you in some way.

It would be odd to call someone a partner unless you shared some positive goal which you can both contribute towards achieving, a goal that includes mutual benefit, not just the opportunity to defeat the other. So, the shared goal must be the enjoyment of the game, not just the chance to enjoy winning, since both players don't get to enjoy winning.

The handicapping system points us in this direction, of course, since it's effect is to prevent us from winning more than about half the time. If the enjoyment we seek is in winning, Go is not the best game to choose. If we're going to have a chance of enjoying more than about half our games, the quality of the game has to be the focus, and that's where the idea of the other player and oneself as partners comes to the fore.

This has an impact both on my attitude toward the other's playing and on my attitude toward my own playing. Since my goal is not just to win, I want my partner to make the best plays possible, not blunders that enable me to win easily. I want to win, of course, but what I really want is to win a game that has been brilliantly played-by both partners.

Hence, it is important for me not to make blunders, either. It's not just that they are likely to lead to my losing. Thanks to the handicapping system, I'm going to lose about half the time no matter how I play. The problem with my making blunders is that they prevent me from enjoying the game, whether I win or lose. The enjoyment of winning due to your partner's stupid blunders is very slight indeed. The enjoyment of playing well even though losing is far superior.

And that's one of the essential qualities of Go. You must play well, not just so that you may win, but so that you can enjoy the game. When I try something in a game, not knowing just where it will lead, I don't want my partner to just collapse. I want the other player to come up with a challenging response that will push us both to higher levels of play. That is our common goal, to reach higher levels of play, not just to win games.

This sort of partnership, aiming at improving the quality of play, exists in most games, but in Go it gets more emphasis than in most cases because of the handicapping system. Handicapping helps us to remember that the other player is more our partner than our opponent and that as partners we share an obligation to try to find the best moves we can, not just to win, but to produce a better mutual creation, a well-played game. So, I should apologize to my partner when I make a blunder that gives away the game. By my carelessness, I've undermined the goal both of us were seeking.
The Empty Board #15

American Go Journal XXXIII, 3 (Summer 1999), 24

Copyright © 1994-2005 William Cobb. All rights reserved.

For me, this is the essence of TTGs and I think that the recent mentality of the 40k community has sadly left this behind long ago. For me 2nd Edition always seemed to be written with this in mind, sure you were trying to win but you were still in it with the other guy to have fun. When you made cheesy characters it wasn't because you wanted to win but because you wanted to have a titanic battle play out in the middle of the field (characters made great anti-characters but could do little else very well; thus you only really took characters to kill each other in my experience... and I'll be damned if it was kind of fun :p). Fun should always be the true aim of the game and I hope GW remembers that before they go fully down the tournament route.

catbarf
28-11-2007, 02:53
Very good post. But what the heck is 'Go'?

Ronin_eX
28-11-2007, 03:12
A japanese abstract strategy game (abstract strategy games are things along the lines of chess, checkers and othello). A fairly complex one too as they are still working on coming up with a 'solution' for it like they did with checkers but, like chess, it is too complex to fully map (actually it is even more complex than chess as they have yet to develop software that plays it as well as Deep Blue can play Chess). Don't know the specifics of it myself but then again I like my non-abstract strategy games. :p

UncleCrazy
28-11-2007, 03:44
Computers easlily win at "Go". It is much simplier than Chess because each piece can only put down on the broad. For those of you who grew up in the states "Go" is kind of like "Connect Four".

Noserenda
28-11-2007, 03:50
Frankly, if i wanted to play a 2nd Ed game id dig out Necromunda (Or Gorkamorka if we've been drinking) as they suited the Ruleset a hell of a lot better than 40k did. But then I played with a Khorne Beserker force in late 2nd Ed so a lot of my memories of it are tainted by bleak realisation of how appallingly boring its HTH system really was :(

That and 3rd Ed let me play a Mechanised Infantry force, which frankly won my heart :chrome:

2nd Ed has its times, I can honestly say a lot of the KEWL moments of wargaming i remember are from then, but tbh it seems rose tinted specs tend to be worn whilst thinking about it. not to mention the outright tiring assertions that it was more realistic and tactical, which are somewhat true but are generally blown out of all proportions. :eek:

That and playing again would mean finding a buttload of cards, tokens, WD's, printed errata/houserules more WD's , another stack of cards and the old templates. Ah, at least the books are on my shelf :D (Bring back fat dexes!)

Damn, thats rambling, im off to bed.

mark.k
28-11-2007, 05:41
That's a mis-labelled auction for a 3rd ed codex. The giveaway is the way it has the same cover as the DE codex that you can find on the shelves in today's GW stores...
nope it has the Chapter Approved on the cover which the new one dont

Ronin_eX
28-11-2007, 07:13
Computers easlily win at "Go". It is much simplier than Chess because each piece can only put down on the broad. For those of you who grew up in the states "Go" is kind of like "Connect Four".

Also my mistake as I should be attributing Go to china.

Hmm a few articles on AI development that I've read have suggested that it is harder to "solve" than chess (i.e. map all the permutations). While it is possible to make a computer play it well it is, to my knowledge, not possible to have it playing as well as a human who is really good at it. Checkers has been solved and as such there are computers that play the game so well that the best you can hope for is a draw. Deep Blue has the early game and end game down pat and in most cases beating it will be quite difficult and above most people. On the other hand information from Wikipedia says this about Go Software:

The Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go)

This is by no means saying that Chess is simple but Go has a lot going on under the surface and is a fairly deep game despite simple mechanics (like a lot of Asian strategy games really). But this is something of an interest of mine and quite far off the beaten path of the thread.

So, umm... back to the topic.


2nd Ed has its times, I can honestly say a lot of the KEWL moments of wargaming i remember are from then, but tbh it seems rose tinted specs tend to be worn whilst thinking about it.

Speak for yourself, those who are posting how fun it is aren't usually doing so out of nostalgia. We still play the game and while most of us will have house rules none of us are saying that 2nd Edition didn't have its hiccups. We are simply stating that were GW to have fixed the mistakes instead of erasing all their progress an going back to square one then we would have likely had a better game to show for it. Though that is a fair point about all the datafaxes and cards, that is what makes it so hard for new people to get into 2nd edition. While they were nice for quick references it would have been nice if some things didn't outright rely on cards (glares at the warp deck).

In the end I have always found 2nd more fun the 3rd or 4th (but 4th is a huge improvement on 3rd at least). That said it still isn't my favourite wargame but it will always remain my favourite flavour of 40k. Part of me still wishes they would release it again as a specialist game so that I could find an easy place to pick up the stuff that I'm missing from expansions. Luckily 5th Edition sounds like another overall improvement so that should help a little. With any luck we will have much better game by 6th or 7th Edition (maybe they'll start printing FaQs by then?). ;)

BrainFireBob
28-11-2007, 07:46
nope it has the Chapter Approved on the cover which the new one dont

Which was added to the edition they published the DE vehicle upgrades in, in around 2001-2002. It's a 3rd Ed codex,

pookie
28-11-2007, 09:43
@stonehorse, i'll deff be checking your link out, hadnt noticed your location! i'l possible be in touch mate.



nope it has the Chapter Approved on the cover which the new one dont

Nope wrong.

DE were only in the fluff during RT/and 2nd ed days, they were even know as Eldar pirates back then not DE ( or Chaos Eldar - the two had never really been expanded upon so either would be seen as DE).

too young to know....

thearchiver
28-11-2007, 14:28
Not quite right pookie, Dark eldar and Pirate Eldar where two different things even back in 2ed. DE where nasty slavers, where pirates where eldar mercs/outcasts and it was common for eldar to be pirates for sometime before returning to their craftworld and take a path again.

While Dark eldar where only ever named as a nasty enemy someone was going off to fight, IE the Fire hawks where lost to warp while travling to deal with DE.

While its was Yriel's pirate fleet that came to the resuce of the Iyanden craftworld.

pookie
28-11-2007, 14:33
Not quite right pookie, Dark eldar and Pirate Eldar where two different things even back in 2ed. DE where nasty slavers, where pirates where eldar mercs/outcasts and it was common for eldar to be pirates for sometime before returning to their craftworld and take a path again.

While Dark eldar where only ever named as a nasty enemy someone was going off to fight, IE the Fire hawks where lost to warp while travling to deal with DE.

While its was Yriel's pirate fleet that came to the resuce of the Iyanden craftworld.

ah your right, theres even options in the craftworld dex for pirates, suppose they would be the 'outcasts' as opposed to Pirate's then? ( in current fluff )

Rikens
28-11-2007, 19:41
Can you provide a link to this study? Or does such a study only exist as an example of just how invalid our opinions are next to your opinions... Of course I can't provide a link to such a study, it was a rhetorical device. Who on Earth would ever bother funding such research? Moreover how could it work "as an example of just how invalid our opinions are next to your opinions"? I was trying to use it to suggest that no matter how 'valid' and special our opinions are to ourselves, they are meaningless unless they have some relation to an objective standard of proof. Since that is usually not forthcoming on the Internet, and since the inevitable response is either silly incomprehension or unconsidered rejection ("Well, that's just your opinion...!") I was hoping certain posters would notice the diversity of opinions on the subject and take a hint as to how to proceed. How to proceed, as people seem to intuitively understand when not posting on the Internet, is to sit down together and figure out the source of their disagreement. But that won't happen. Your own response, for example, is typical of Internet penis-waving contests where no criticism can be honestly given and constructive, and must be some kind of slur or 'flame'.


The only army that has to use advanced tactics in the current climate of 40K is Dark Eldar and that is due to their fragile nature, but even then it's a one trick army. Funny, I've heard that they're a one-trick army, but only on the Internet. I've even seen the list, filled with Dark Lances and Ravagers, and it doesn't look like my Dark Eldar army (filled with Scourges and Mandrakes, and other "weak" units). I've found that all armies in 40k can use 'advanced tactics' such as carving up opposing units by exploiting lines of sight and range, breaking units in assaults by spending time manouevering for an extra turn under fire so that the defending unit's ability to attack is minimized, the damage done to it can be maximized with good rolls, its coherence broken, and preferably either caught in the sweeping advance or destroyed without resort to escape. But this requires patience that one actually takes the effort to move each model correctly and with precision, and when one presumes that W40k is merely a Beer-and-Pretzels game one eliminates the opportunity to learn the advanced tactics out of hand.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 20:08
I've found that all armies in 40K can use 'advanced tactics'

Play a game of Epic and those 'advanced tactics' suddenly become blindingly simple 'strategies'.

when one presumes that W40k is merely a Beer-and-Pretzels game
It really is... and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion... I play 40k to relax, and don't even try to pretend that it's tactically complex. I play 40k for fun. :)

catbarf
28-11-2007, 20:41
I'm seriously interested in Epic. What's it like as a game system? I've heard it's more strategic, but how so?

I mean, what makes it so much more a thinking game than 40k?

And how would you suggest I go about acquiring miniatures?

Lastly, were Tyranid rules ever released?

Vishok
28-11-2007, 21:47
Love the new edition.

Got all my old stuff though.

I'm glad there aren't as many cardboard cut outs to keep track of, not keeping track of every parry and fumble, not keeping different standards for vehicles that are basically the same, not needing datafaxes for every vehicle, not as many different useless dice, not as many uber characters, and so on.

Those things are for roleplaying games. But hey, I still use some of the counters in special scenarios and other Warhammer / GW games.

So go play 2nd editionand good luck to you, but I think you're being unfair and rather snotty when you say that the current edition is inferior. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

There were some of us that were quite happy with the changes brought about in 3rd and 4th editions.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 22:38
I'm seriously interested in Epic. What's it like as a game system?
It is a balanced game system designed in as close to a simulation-style as is possible on a tabletop (For example, each turn strictly represents 15minutes, no more, no less).


I've heard it's more strategic, but how so?

The way I tend to briefly explain it is:

- 40k contains strategy (Building your army list) but not much tactics (In-game, the army list basically plays itself, most moves are obvious).

- Epic contains both strategy and tactics.

This is at least partially down to the turn sequence (Epic's turn sequence is a very modern back-and-forth style as opposed to 40k's older I-go-You-go style), but the powerful 'orders' system also plays a part (You can order formations to move and shoot, double move and shoot with -1 to hit, triple move with no shooting, stay still and get +1 to hit, go on overwatch, etc...).

Plus there's the simple fact that Epic was designed from the ground up with experienced wargamers in mind, so most facets of the game tends to be both balanced and logical.


I mean, what makes it so much more a thinking game than 40k?
In a standard meeting engagement, there are 5 victory conditions, and you need at least two (And more than your enemy) to claim a win.

Of those 5 conditions, only 1 is based directly on kills.

The rest are about controlling ground, or denying it to your enemy... in a more complex manner than 40k's 'loot counter' system. (40k's Apocalypse features a very simplified version of some of Epic's victory conditions, incidentally)

That's just one reason why Epic makes you think more.


And how would you suggest I go about acquiring miniatures?

From here. (http://uk.games-workshop.com/storefront/store.uk?do=List_Models&code=300814)

And here. (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/QUATERMASTERS_STORE_EPIC_40_000_39.html)

And also here (The ground defenses section has some nice terrain, and also there are some extra tanks that aren't found in FW's main Epic section) (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/acatalog/Aeronautica_Imperialis.html)


Lastly, were Tyranid rules ever released?

Development of the Tyranid army list is still ongoing. (http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=21)

catbarf
28-11-2007, 22:50
That's just, like, your opinion, man.

No! Really? Obviously he spoke for the rest of the world :rolleyes:

Sorry, just a pet peeve.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is claiming it to be completely superior, but that it's a better tactical game. 4th tries to be large-scale but there are a lot of things that go against this. 2nd is smaller-scale, and this makes the changes manageable.

Edit: Thanks for the links C&E, I'll definitely order it this Christmas.

Oh, and how are aircraft handled in Epic?

Ronin_eX
28-11-2007, 23:06
Play a game of Epic and those 'advanced tactics' suddenly become blindingly simple 'strategies'.

It really is... and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion... I play 40k to relax, and don't even try to pretend that it's tactically complex. I play 40k for fun. :)

After playing other wargames (of which I classify most specialist games as) it tends to open up one's eyes (if you are willing to let them be opened) to games that tend to have a much wider range of strategy and tactics involved. Sure 40k has various ways to exploit LOS but compared to most games it is alarmingly simply (models don't even have facing except for vehicles and blast weapons are handled strangely due to the LOS rules). I have played loads of games and 3rd and 4th edition really don't compare to the depth that is usually found in most modern TTGs (note I said depth not complexity, many of these games have simpler mechanics than 40k and still manage to be a game that allows deeper tactics to come into play).

It is fairly easy to go about saying the 40k can have 'advanced tactics' but really it is only true within the game itself. 40k is a simple beer and pretzels game; this isn't a bad thing but it isn't what I'm always looking for. 40k can still be quite fun even if the deepest strategy the game has is proper target selection and army building and the most complex tactic tends to revolve around either trying to assault your opponent soon or trying to avoid it all together. I still play 4th edition for those reasons but when I want something that makes me thing I go for other wargames (and there are plenty of good ones out there).

Part of me still wishes GW would make a slightly deeper rule set so I could scratch my itch in one of my favourite settings but those days have passed and all of the greatest things that GW have ever made have been relegated to being OOP (Spacehulk, RT and 2nd Edition) or a second string game with little support (Epic, BFG, Necromunda, Mordheim, Warmaster). It is kind of sad that the best rule systems GW has ever made have always ended up falling to the wayside as people tend to forget how well they used to make games (and maybe if people remember Bloodbowl they would remember why JJ is often regarded as such a good designer).


I'm glad there aren't as many cardboard cut outs to keep track of, not keeping track of every parry and fumble, not keeping different standards for vehicles that are basically the same, not needing datafaxes for every vehicle, not as many different useless dice, not as many uber characters, and so on.

Yup some of that stuff was clunky, but why didn't they just fix that? They threw out a lot of other things that weren't so horrible. The cover system (mod based instead of being another save) was much better in 2nd and made the game play completely differently (cover was important against all weapons, not just those that could go through your armour, even Marines kept to it if possible).

Armour save mods were another unfortunate loss that also didn't add to the complexity of the game (in 3rd and 4th you compare values that must be memorized, in 2nd you subtract two values that must be memorized; that takes little extra time and also makes cover more important).

While the to-hit modifiers would be complex if each weapon had its own I think a more generic table wouldn't be out of the question (or even just a straight -1 to hit past a certain distance?). Then again using the 2nd edition's method of 'averaging' to-hit mods could also be a solution (if more than half the squad is at long range then they all get the resulting modifier... wow simple :p).

The individual movement stat was much better than we have today (along with the rest of the movement rules). The morale system was much better and actually made leadership count for something. The overall army design system was better (none of this FOC malarkey) as it allowed more freedom, with the inclusion of one more category (elite troops) it would have been perfect.

While I'm at it the LOS system was also much better in 2nd edition (though I would up the LOS to 180 degrees as that seems to be the norm nowadays). Being able to split your lines of fire added no complexity (you heard me right ;)) and increased tactical depth. In addition there was the ability of the rest of the squad except for the heavy weapon to move and not throw off the heavy weapon (not to hard to remember, surely it wouldn't even need a marker). This, combined with the heavy/special weapon's ability to fire at different targets was a much more elegant solution than assuming every member in a squad will fire at the same target (needless simplification that takes away depth but doesn't reduce complexity sufficiently to be considered a good change).

So yes all those things you mentioned could have used a fix. But why did they have to cut almost the entire system up in order to do that. That is why 3rd and 4th aren't as good as 2nd (in my opinion). Because they weren't improvements over 2nd they were just different games. GW didn't attempt to fix mistakes they just threw everything out and started over and 40k will need a lot of time to heal from that and become a good system on its own. We are already seeing this happen in 5th edition rumours but it will be a slow process.


So go play 2nd editionand good luck to you, but I think you're being unfair and rather snotty when you say that the current edition is inferior. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

I've been a wargamer half my life, I've played a fair amount of 3rd and 4th edition games as well as having played a fair number of 2nd edition games. I also play many non-GW systems. My opinion is in no way unfair or snotty in this regard. I gave 3rd edition its chance (I even defended it when it first came out) and I am giving 4th its. So far, though, it just doesn't measure up to the other things GW has done (even WHFB is a much tighter rule set than 40k).

I don't dislike them because they are simple though, I don't dislike them because they don't have uber-characters or less in the way of wargear options. The simple reason I dislike them is that they only feel like half a game system right now, in many ways 40k feels a bit like a game you'd expect from another game's quickstart rules (in fact many have compared AT-43 quickstart with 40k 4th edition in terms of depth). A lot was thrown out in 3rd edition and while not all of it needed to be there the system seems to have a gaping hole without some of it.

I'm not saying that 4th Edition isn't a good game, it is. It is actually quite fun in its own way, but having seen what it used to be it is hard to play a system that doesn't feel like it has been finished yet.

Chaos and Evil
28-11-2007, 23:48
Edit: Thanks for the links C&E, I'll definitely order it this Christmas.

Oh, and how are aircraft handled in Epic?

In a similar but more complex manner than Forgeworld's aircraft rules for 40k (Which are basically just 3rd edition Epic aircraft rules ported into 40k).


As an example:

- Aircraft formation activates, and is given an order (Let's say it's a flight of Marauder bombers given a ground attack order).
- Marauders make an approach move towards their target (They may manuever as they come according to certain rules)
- AA weapons shoot (If they're in range)
- Marauders shoot with their lascannons & heavy bolters & drops bombs, blatting a whole bunch of infantry.
- In the end phase, the Marauders make a disengage move (And may be shot at by AA guns that havn't already attacked it as it leaves the area).

- If you can manuever to make your disengage move off of your own table edge, this is preferable to moving off a side edge or your opponent's edge, as otherwise your aircraft's morale/coordination will suffer as it has to fly over enemy territory before it can return and be available to you again.



There are several different types of aircraft, like Bombers, Fighter-Bombers, Fighters etc, so you can have quite an air component to your games if you like, with small dogfights and interceptions occuring above the battlefield. 'Combat Air Patrol' is a favourite order of mine for a Thunderbolt squadron.

Plus if you have a Thunderhawk Gunship packed to the brim with 40 Assault Marines and a couple of Chaplains or Librarians, and you give it a 'Ground Engagement' order, fun things tend to occur... if you can make it through the flak... :D







EDIT:

Note that GW give the Epic rulebook away for FREE online (http://www.specialist-games.com/epic/rulebook.asp), so you can jump straight to the gaming part if you like.

Personally I did pick up a hardback copy of the book as it's more convinent to use and keep intact than a collection of printed pages.

Ronin_eX
29-11-2007, 06:20
I've always liked the way Marines worked in Epic. They were excellent shock troops but they needed to coordinate combat into small areas or they would be overwhelmed. It felt exactly like a surgical strike force and that's exactly how it should be.

stonehorse
29-11-2007, 08:15
If you think 2nd edition is a more tactical game than 4th edition, and that 4th edition is just about rolling dice, then you're a weak 4th edition player. That is all.


. Your own response, for example, is typical of Internet penis-waving contests where no criticism can be honestly given and constructive, and must be some kind of slur or 'flame'.

I think you'll find your fisrt statement in this topic was a slur with the intention of causing a reaction. That is all ;)

Gen.Steiner
29-11-2007, 08:52
I have most of the rules but only two of the Codexes, sadly. Would love to return to the 2nd Ed game but until I get hold of Codex: Chaos and a few others I'm loathe to break open Dark Millenium again. :)

Rikens
29-11-2007, 17:07
I think you'll find your fisrt statement in this topic was a slur with the intention of causing a reaction. That is all Hardly a slur. The fact is that some people are weak players. They just carelessly move and attack with their forces such that beating them is an exercise. I'm certainly not the best player and when my attention wanders I tend to forget the attention to detail that makes for great players. But having been a weak player and knowing that I can improve my play-skills, I can say with authority that these people exist.

Gen.Steiner
29-11-2007, 17:27
I agree, if I don't watch myself I do things like send tanks in unsupported or frontally assault dug-in machine gun nests...

stonehorse
29-11-2007, 19:28
Hardly a slur. The fact is that some people are weak players. They just carelessly move and attack with their forces such that beating them is an exercise. I'm certainly not the best player and when my attention wanders I tend to forget the attention to detail that makes for great players. But having been a weak player and knowing that I can improve my play-skills, I can say with authority that these people exist.

Granted some people are weak players, that is a fact of life. Claiming that someone is a weak player based on their game mechanic preference is in my opinion a gross misconduct.

You may not have voiced it as a slur... but given the obtuseness of the statement, which was your entrance to this thread, it does come across as a slur.

Just out of interest, you claim the the current edition of 40K has advanced tactics, do you say this with experience in non-GW game systems, or just GW games? If you have no non-GW experience, then I can see how you may think so.

@ Ronin_eX

Great reply, one which I think highlights a lot of the problems with the current edition, and also the issues with 2nd edition.

catbarf
29-11-2007, 19:50
It is kind of funny- there's quite a few people who play just GW games. I'm willing to bet that most, if not all of FoW or Warmachine players have played GW and other games in the past.

Perhaps this is part of the problem.

Gen.Steiner
29-11-2007, 20:38
If you want tactically engaging 28mm company level games...

Play Stargrunt II.

If you want a fun, amusing, fairly limited but still to a great extent complex within its own parameters, game at the company level to while away an evening with, play 40K - any edition, but 2nd Ed being the most complex (RT is a platoon-level skirmish game really) and 4th the simplest.

Rikens
29-11-2007, 20:49
I'd like to second Gen.Steiner's suggestion of Stargrunt II. I wouldn't say it's more tactically engaging than 40k, it just has its own set of tactical situations for players to work out. But just about the only thing it has in common with 40k is dice and models, and getting outside of the Warhammer bubble helps people look at it with fresher eyes (except those Nurgle players...).

stonehorse
29-11-2007, 20:54
If you want tactically engaging 28mm company level games...

Play Stargrunt II.

If you want a fun, amusing, fairly limited but still to a great extent complex within its own parameters, game at the company level to while away an evening with, play 40K - any edition, but 2nd Ed being the most complex (RT is a platoon-level skirmish game really) and 4th the simplest.

Good call. I'd say that 3rd edition was the simplest of the 40K editions. 4th is a much better edition then 3rd, and if GW are continuing this trend 5th will be great, and might even make a crusty old vet like myself return to 40K with open arms.

Rikens
29-11-2007, 21:00
Simple is good though. It shouldn't be confused with 'simplistic'. Take Go, for example. Five simple rules and it's incredibly interesting. Cellular automata, for example, obey two simple rules and yet Von Neumannn proved that enough of them together acts like a simple computer, which in turn can simulate a really complex computer.

Sorry, I'm just grouchy about people wanting more complexity when they don't actually want complexity, they want more tactical problem-solving (more options).

Gen.Steiner
29-11-2007, 21:07
I'd like to second Gen.Steiner's suggestion of Stargrunt II. I wouldn't say it's more tactically engaging than 40k, it just has its own set of tactical situations for players to work out. But just about the only thing it has in common with 40k is dice and models, and getting outside of the Warhammer bubble helps people look at it with fresher eyes (except those Nurgle players...).

Thank you. :) It really is a jolly good game - you can even use your 40K models with it!


Good call. I'd say that 3rd edition was the simplest of the 40K editions..

Thinking about it, I'd have to agree with you. Here's hoping 5th is more like the one 3rd should've been.

sigur
29-11-2007, 21:07
....
Sorry, I'm just grouchy about people wanting more complexity when they don't actually want complexity, they want more tactical problem-solving (more options).

On the tactical level 40k is working at the moment, I'd clealy say that it is the same. But, as I mentioned before, the options have to be in the main rulesset (the main part at least), not army-specific.

Ronin_eX
29-11-2007, 22:51
Simple is good though. It shouldn't be confused with 'simplistic'. Take Go, for example. Five simple rules and it's incredibly interesting. Cellular automata, for example, obey two simple rules and yet Von Neumannn proved that enough of them together acts like a simple computer, which in turn can simulate a really complex computer.

Sorry, I'm just grouchy about people wanting more complexity when they don't actually want complexity, they want more tactical problem-solving (more options).

I'm fine without complexity but I would like more depth and options (these don't necessarily add to complexity) that are used in a more general way. Less specific special rules (fleet of foot, rending, choppas, etc.) and more basic mechanics (running/forced march, armour modifiers) would be the best option in this case. When you look at the number of options you have currently compared to many other games you really have vanishingly little to do in your turn (thus it is less engaging than most wargames, but still fun).

So I would like to see more options return to the actual gameplay that exist for more than just a single unit in one list. I think that it was the proliferation of special rules in 3rd edition that really got to me, many simpler solutions existed (how many rules were created to circumvent a marine's save that could have been simplified by using a modifier?). For me it is the core mechanics of 40k that need the most work. Codices brought in extra complexity but that's just putting skin on a skeleton, it needs muscles and organs before it starts really working.

So while I don't think it should amp up the complexity too much I think it needs to add some options for players during gameplay (forced march sounds good and I'm hoping they will bring in some kind of reaction mechanic like charge reactions or an updated Overwatch). There are plenty of things they can do that wont add to the amount of time that is taken to do things that will improve gameplay, I'm just hoping they realize this and make some smart changes next edition.

In the end they should be learning from past editions instead of throwing out hard work and starting over again. It finally looks like they are taking a look at all previous editions and are beginning to integrate things that worked well while replacing stuff that hasn't. This will hopefully lead to a good game at the end of it all.

manstein1973
30-11-2007, 15:20
There has been so much said already that would my sentiments would echo, but I feel compelled to add in my experiences with 2nd edition. I haven't played 2nd edition since 1998, but I do miss it still.

I started playing 40k during 2nd edition in 1994 (4 years before 3rd edition was released).

I don't know if it was because I was an adolescent at the time, but the sheer depth of 40k in 2nd edition was addictive. Countless wargear cards, psychic cards in the warp deck, strategy cards, mission cards (where opponents had secondary mission objectives that the other didn't know, and subsequently were questioning their opponents peculiar moves). While this card based system was clumsy at times, it made the battles themselves interesting imo.

The Codex's seemed longer, with an emphasis put on the fluff. As people have mentioned, unit costs were significantly higher, but then again so were their lethality (specifically special characters/herohammer). Make no mistake, single characters could, and often did, lay waste to an enemy army in 2nd edition. My friend's Imperial Guard had this happen to him several times.

The game also was incredibly random at times. Things such as: vehicles getting a hit in the "Track", driving out of control and ramming into anything in their path, vortex grenades scattering onto friend and foe, jump-pack troops scattering off the edges of buildings and falling to their deaths...etc. This randomness was often humorous, many times frustrating, but always interesting.

There were really bad aspects of 2nd edition though. I personally feel that "overwatch" was the single worst rule of them all. The ability to shoot on the opponents turn, and turn his unit into a pile of scrap/burnt-flesh as it attempted to move out of cover, made the game incredibly static at times (as one poster mentioned). When there wasn't enough cover on the table, players were afraid to move their troops out of what little cover they had. The psychic system was clumsy. Transporting men was frustrating and almost pointless. Deep striking was expensive and sometimes devastating
(unit costed 50% more to deep strike, rolling double 1's on the scatter dice meant the entire unit was destroyed in a "cataclysmic event during teleportation").

Instead of improving on all of these faults though, GW simply scrapped the entire system and replaced it with, IMO, one of the most bland table top games I've played in a while. Literally everything was dumbed down. Wargear was limited, psychic powers were limited...basically everything else that was previously mentioned. "Streamlined" would be a good term to describe it.

I got out of 40k around 2000 and moved into Mordheim, and then Fantasy. Call me odd...but Fantasy felt more like 2nd edition 40k then 3rd edition 40k did. Just an all around compelling game.

I didn't get back into 40k until 4th edition, and I enjoy it. GW seems to be getting back on track...I hope.

ChaosMaster
30-11-2007, 15:39
Manstein1973, great MST3K avatar!

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing what 5th edition brings us. I think every edition of 40K has shown improvement, but it could still use a LOT of tightening up to avoid the kind of endless loophole exploitation one sees by some players.

MST3K fans, Cinematic Titanic (http://www.cinematictitanic.com/) from Joel Hodgson is coming!

Rikens
30-11-2007, 16:56
Granted some people are weak players, that is a fact of life. Claiming that someone is a weak player based on their game mechanic preference is in my opinion a gross misconduct. I rather disagree. If you take two games and say one is better because it's more 'tactical' or somesuch, but that game doesn't actually allow for the same depth of play, it is quite appropriate conduct to point out that the person in question is a weak player. For what else is a weak player than someone who doesn't appreciate the tactical depth of a game?


You may not have voiced it as a slur... but given the obtuseness of the statement, which was your entrance to this thread, it does come across as a slur. Anything can come across as a slur if you're prickly enough. Lighten up! ;)


Just out of interest, you claim the the current edition of 40K has advanced tactics, do you say this with experience in non-GW game systems, or just GW games? If you have no non-GW experience, then I can see how you may think so. I say this with a wide experience of non-GW games (and non-wargames to boot). However I say the current edition of 40k requires a player to learn and apply 'advanced tactics' because of the structure of the game and the way that structure rewards players that pay close attention to interactions between models and units, not only to their descriptions, but to their position in space and time as well. Unfortunately the lack of a board and models on the Internet distracts people from this vital information. People have plenty of options during a game, and moreso than in 2nd edition, they just have to look closely at what is going on on the board to see the full spread of those options.

scarletsquig
30-11-2007, 17:50
Another vote for Stargrunt here, I've played it using 40k models and it's excellent. :)

After having a look around, there is one pretty damn big problem with it. It's out of print and GZG haven't offered it as a free download yet, like they did with full thrust.

Adept
30-11-2007, 18:28
Sorry, I'm just grouchy about people wanting more complexity when they don't actually want complexity, they want more tactical problem-solving (more options).

True dat.

Most wargamers are screaming for more complex rules. If they actually got them, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

Ronin_eX
30-11-2007, 20:13
When there wasn't enough cover on the table

There really should have never been an excuse for that. Loading up on terrain was a big recommendation by Andy Chambers in the Design Notes. To quote him games with little terrain "will be short, bloody, and rather dull." He goes on to state that the game was balanced around using a lot of terrain and that if heavy weapons and other such things were dominating your games then you should add more terrain. In his own words:

"The more terrain the better the game."

For those that still have the book the Designer's Notes are on page 94 and I really do recommend giving it a read, especially if you are one of those people with bad memories of Overwatch. Overwatch was overpowered if little terrain was used but if you loaded up on terrain it was a handy option but not something for the entire army to do. Of course no one seems to have read the designer's notes and now there is a misconception that reaction mechanics = satan. But hey it takes all kinds. ;)

Chaos Legion
30-11-2007, 21:54
Never played 2nd edition. I started with Rogue Trader and then had a massive gap till I started again last year with th latest edition which I think is brilliant. Rogue Trader was great for smaller skirmish type games. I assume 2nd dition had loads of cards like early Space Marine and Epic?

Apollyon
30-11-2007, 22:43
If overwatch negated movement you were doing something horribly wrong! Cover, smoke and blind grenades and missles along with jumpacks and vehicles limited the effectiveness of overwatch.

You did put terrain on the table didn't you?


Perhaps you'd have more luck planning and playing an Apocalypse game with these people then ?:p



HA! NOt like in second edition where everyone spent 50% of their points on rock hard HQ choices, techmarines on bikes to ram vehicles and characters with jump packs and vortex grenades on suicide runs.

And the overwatch rules pretty much negated any tactical movement.

Apollyon
30-11-2007, 22:49
Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion? It seems stunning considering things like ...you can no long throw grenades or sprint or a host of other things....so could you please explain?



Unfortunately the lack of a board and models on the Internet distracts people from this vital information. People have plenty of options during a game, and moreso than in 2nd edition, they just have to look closely at what is going on on the board to see the full spread of those options.

Lexington
30-11-2007, 23:04
Most wargamers are screaming for more complex rules. If they actually got them, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
Oh, I don't know about that - plenty of people seem perfectly content with 4th Edition. ;)

Honestly, though, I'll take elegance and intuitive design over complexity anymore. 40K is so full of workarounds to correct the shortcomings of it's "simplifications," you wonder why they even bother. How many 'fleet of' rules are there now? Now we've got rumors of everyone getting an extra die of movement if they don't shoot in 5th Edition? Was it really so much trouble for people to use individualized movement statistics, doubled for running, halved for terrain, etc.? How much of the game is now a contest to see who can load up on more AP3/power/rending weaponry because players couldn't be bothered to do the simple math of an armor save modifier?

I don't think players really want complexity; what they want is a set of rules that isn't so convoluted. 3rd Edition was an attempt to create a hybrid system out of the traditional Warhammer rules and Epic 40K, and when it kept with that philosophy, it worked rather well. It was the almost immediate turn to try and add more detail, customization and individualized rules into the system that turned it into the shambling beast it is today.

Ronin_eX
30-11-2007, 23:25
Oh, I don't know about that - plenty of people seem perfectly content with 4th Edition. ;)

Honestly, though, I'll take elegance and intuitive design over complexity anymore. 40K is so full of workarounds to correct the shortcomings of it's "simplifications," you wonder why they even bother. How many 'fleet of' rules are there now? Now we've got rumors of everyone getting an extra die of movement if they don't shoot in 5th Edition? Was it really so much trouble for people to use individualized movement statistics, doubled for running, halved for terrain, etc.? How much of the game is now a contest to see who can load up on more AP3/power/rending weaponry because players couldn't be bothered to do the simple math of an armor save modifier?

I don't think players really want complexity; what they want is a set of rules that isn't so convoluted. 3rd Edition was an attempt to create a hybrid system out of the traditional Warhammer rules and Epic 40K, and when it kept with that philosophy, it worked rather well. It was the almost immediate turn to try and add more detail, customization and individualized rules into the system that turned it into the shambling beast it is today.

Bingo, we have a winner. 3rd Edition only started to bug me after codices came out and they started to jury rig everything the system couldn't do which seemed to completely ruin the point of simplifying the game in the first place.

Rikens
02-12-2007, 01:07
Could you please explain how you came to this conclusion? It seems stunning considering things like ...you can no long throw grenades or sprint or a host of other things....so could you please explain? Because throwing grenades, sprinting, and that host of other things were just over-detailed fluff, they didn't improve the essential game mechanics and in the case of things like over-watch they interfered with the development of tactical acumen by multiplying out the risk of actions like hoofing it towards a prepared enemy and thus causing players to perceive more risk than worth taking and often resulting in stalemates where the players were too timid to play!

Empirically speaking Warhammer players are risk-adverse. Just look at the outcry over the new Chaos Codex. It's powerful at the cost of being risky, but instead of taking that risk in stride At the risk of reiterating a cliche, I blame Space Marines.

Space Marines are the army for the risk-adverse (why yes, I am collecting an army of them, why do you ask?) - they're more likely to take saving throws, make saving throws, pass priority tests, pinning tests, and so on. They automatically rally, even if under 50%, and they resist adverse effects of plasma weapons well.

Back during 2nd edition Space Marines didn't have all of the perks they do now, though they had some they no longer have. Doesn't that mean we can't blame Space Marines? No, but that's because, thanks to the granularity of systems employing modifiers to maximize outcomes and thus encourage certain tactics and strategies, stuff had to be really reliable for players to take them. Which meant that armies tended to look the same, whether Ork, Eldar, or Space Marine. Lots of saves on characters, and lots of characters because they tended to survive better than squads or vehicles. Transport vehicles weren't reliable enough to suit players that wanted to just drive them forward, and Terminators were so reliable that they were ubiquitous.

Even these days Fire Prisms and Shining Spears had to be made even better than they were to meet the low standard of risk that Eldar players were willing to accept in preference to the Star-cannon toting Guardian hordes that could grind a little. That said Eldar armies are more fragile, more hit-or-miss, these days and I think we see a higher caliber of Eldar player emerge as a result. Likewise we see a higher-caliber of Necron player emerge when they get away from the phalanx formation (sure it does nothing interesting, but it stays there and does nothing the whole time, which is great if you're just grinding rather than playing over objectives) and start doing risky things like taking Wraiths, Tomb Spyders, and (heaven forbid) Pariahs. Otherwise people aren't willing to take these units because they don't want to risk losing!

feelnopain666
02-12-2007, 01:51
Since the crap "Codex: loyalist with spikes", I was angry with the simplification and insinuations to our mental level, until I meet another guy who also shares my opinion. we are in the way to bring back to life the 2nd Edition on our games store. with some luck we can bring more people to this wonderful time when the game was a mental challenge. Play nice and fair!

Damage,Inc.
02-12-2007, 02:32
I have played games of RT/1E, albeit as skirmishes. We all knew the rules and abided by them so the need for a GM wasn't there. We played Orks vs IG and had a blast. It IS most definately a skirmish oriented game, but it is also story oriented. There is much more depth that goes into everything and the missions can be a lot of fun and very varied, unlike the fast-paced 3/4E missions. It is what they tried to recapture with Kill Teams.

The characters were over the top, but in a way that was fun too. It took only a few simple changes to the rules to make it fun. Of course it isn't for huge battles or tourneys, but amongst friends it is a lot of fun, especially the randomness of Orks vs Chaos. I miss random the random actions for units like Chaos Dreads, MAdboyz, and things like that.

BrainFireBob
02-12-2007, 02:42
Because throwing grenades, sprinting, and that host of other things were just over-detailed fluff, they didn't improve the essential game mechanics and in the case of things like over-watch they interfered with the development of tactical acumen by multiplying out the risk of actions like hoofing it towards a prepared enemy and thus causing players to perceive more risk than worth taking and often resulting in stalemates where the players were too timid to play!

Empirically speaking Warhammer players are risk-adverse. Just look at the outcry over the new Chaos Codex. It's powerful at the cost of being risky, but instead of taking that risk in stride At the risk of reiterating a cliche, I blame Space Marines.

Space Marines are the army for the risk-adverse (why yes, I am collecting an army of them, why do you ask?) - they're more likely to take saving throws, make saving throws, pass priority tests, pinning tests, and so on. They automatically rally, even if under 50%, and they resist adverse effects of plasma weapons well.

Back during 2nd edition Space Marines didn't have all of the perks they do now, though they had some they no longer have. Doesn't that mean we can't blame Space Marines? No, but that's because, thanks to the granularity of systems employing modifiers to maximize outcomes and thus encourage certain tactics and strategies, stuff had to be really reliable for players to take them. Which meant that armies tended to look the same, whether Ork, Eldar, or Space Marine. Lots of saves on characters, and lots of characters because they tended to survive better than squads or vehicles. Transport vehicles weren't reliable enough to suit players that wanted to just drive them forward, and Terminators were so reliable that they were ubiquitous.

Even these days Fire Prisms and Shining Spears had to be made even better than they were to meet the low standard of risk that Eldar players were willing to accept in preference to the Star-cannon toting Guardian hordes that could grind a little. That said Eldar armies are more fragile, more hit-or-miss, these days and I think we see a higher caliber of Eldar player emerge as a result. Likewise we see a higher-caliber of Necron player emerge when they get away from the phalanx formation (sure it does nothing interesting, but it stays there and does nothing the whole time, which is great if you're just grinding rather than playing over objectives) and start doing risky things like taking Wraiths, Tomb Spyders, and (heaven forbid) Pariahs. Otherwise people aren't willing to take these units because they don't want to risk losing!

Bravo, sir- right in one.

That's where quite a bit of the difference of opinion on "power gaming" comes from. Many players want Warhammer to have that chess element of "capture," IMHO- if their unit can engage your unit, your unit is guaranteed obliterated. The game was becoming a game of trading units for units more than one of tactical thinking, hedged bets, and improvisation- which is why list construction became so overwhelmingly important, as did Math-hammer.

catbarf
02-12-2007, 02:59
And now, because of fewer options, you have no ways to circumvent those uber-killy-units, and that's somehow better...?

BrainFireBob
02-12-2007, 03:02
There's fewer uber-killy units, and they tend not to have absolute power. Even Lash princes are excellent because of their synergy.

Omniassiah
02-12-2007, 03:46
Second edition games hold some of my top 10 games that I've played of 40k... unfortunately it holds all 10 of my most unenjoyable games. I coined it the "Bipolar edition" because rarely did you have a good game it was either epic, or both players wanted to stop playing and start again. I remember playing games or more appropriately watching games of 40k since the player could quickly become inconsequential to how the game was going to progress.

the other main problem why I hated second edition, and the same reason I hated the 2.5 Chaos, was the rules for the sake of having rules. Just because you can have a rule for it is it really necessary? I can go on for days on second edition rules that are constantly referred to as being more realistic but are so incorrect its not even funny but I won't (from a gunsmiths perspective armor save modifiers makes no sense on Infantry.)

If I can find my old second edition rules and stuff I might get a game with my LGS owner but only with the understanding that it will more and likely be a great game or just horrible.

obithius
02-12-2007, 11:39
Hi,
so a few people are still fond of 2nd edition,myself included.All of my most memorable games seem to be from 2nd edition,I'm not sure why...
But most people also seem to agree that it needed 'tweaks' to correct some inbalances.What should they be?
In the last days of the game my group had removed virus grenades,virus outbreak,and vortex grenades-I know they were fun,but every army seemed to be devoted to them.We also adjusted the army selection numbers.You could spend up to 50% of your points on characters,and you ended up with herohammer.So we dropped it to 10% I think,the rest going to troops.
Any other ideas?

spaint2k
02-12-2007, 15:31
Computers easlily win at "Go". It is much simplier than Chess because each piece can only put down on the broad. For those of you who grew up in the states "Go" is kind of like "Connect Four".

Sorry UncleCrazy, that's not right at all. You're thinking of "wuziqi" (five "piece" chess), which is a variant played by kids here in Taiwan, and yes, it is essentially "Connect Five".

Go ("weiqi" = "surrounding" chess in Mandarin) is a much more complex game that computers are nowhere near capable of solving. It's played on a 19x19 board (making it over five times larger than a chessboard) and unlike chess, there is no obvious and immediately calculable strategic advantages to having one position over another. There are an impossibly large number of possible outcomes to the game and I don't think anyone has been able to calculate them.

On-topic for a moment, having only played a few games of fourth edition I'm liking it less and less. I am another one who welcomed third edition with open arms but then stepped back from my beloved orks as I realized that what had previously been a lot of fun and very memorable gaming became essentially slaughter-fests as my boyz ran headlong toward the enemy, first shooting with their pathetic BS (yet still causing a lot of damage) before charging and ripping the enemy to pieces.

Maybe it's nostalgia speaking (I guess I'll know after I go back and play a few games), but 40K seems to have evolved into rolling buckets of dice. Sure, 2nd edition wasn't perfect, but like someone said, play with friends who "get it", and you avoid herohammer. And take out all the game-wrecking bits like Virus Outbreak and you've got a game that's a lot of fun to play. I'm going to give it a try sometime anyway.

Steve

Ronin_eX
03-12-2007, 02:33
There's fewer uber-killy units, and they tend not to have absolute power. Even Lash princes are excellent because of their synergy.

I would say that characters got worse during 3rd and 4th edition than they were in 2nd edition overall. Sure 2nd edition characters were survivable but not one was immune to insta-kill (or having multiple wounds dealt to them in 2nd edition terms) and characters could be randomly hit by shooting weapons even when close to a squad. That alone meant that it was possible to kill a character before he could reach close combat (where he is much harder to kill).

Characters in 3rd and 4th can't be targeted unless they are the closest thing you can fire on and not attached to a squad (read: ablative wounds). The chances of this character getting into hand to hand is much greater as a squad is perfect protection for the character. So compared to 2nd, even with the ability to take two saves (only one save and one unmodified save could be taken and the modified save would often be at -1), 3rd/4th edition characters worked well.

What about killing potential in HtH? Well in 2nd Edition you could only attack a model in base to base contact, as most squads were well spread out (greater than 1" apart) this meant that the character would charge one model. Unless this model is a close combat fiend (genestealer for example) it will tend to die. But that's it, the character can then follow up another 2" into the next model. It will likely die but a character that costs hundred of points is hardly worth killing one model a turn for the rest of the game. Keep in mind that games in 2nd edition were balanced to be 4 turns long (6 max if using random length) so that doesn't add up to much killing.

A 3rd/4th edition character tends to have at least 3 base attacks, with upgrades they often have 5-6 plus an extra on the charge and occasionally an extra one from two CCWs. So assume the usual 6-7 attacks and the high WS (often hit on a 3+) as well as high initiative (good chance of killing first). Now further add the fact that their is a 2" "range" on their attacks and most character will tend to wipe the floor with a squad in most cases. Even my guard commander has taken down most of a squad of BT space marines on his own. So that 130+ point character will actually make its points back in 3rd/4th edition whereas a CC monster in 2nd Edition would tend to kill less over the course of the game for what is often more points.

The 2nd edition character wouldn't often be threatened by most one-on-one encounters but then again would a single SM Commander ever have much to fear from a single guardsmen? Nope, in most cases the guardsman would go down without even a chance of striking back (not that it would do him much good). But I hear you say "well if they ganged up they might have a chance". In 3rd/4th probably not much (so long as he kills a few and wins CC they may break and he ends up killing the lot of them in most cases due to the high initiative).

In 2nd ganging up had better chances of dealing a wound but not by much (the guard would be better off breaking off and filling the commander full of las shots, and that is a possibility in 2nd) and it will likely only be one wound. In either case ganging up on characters only works if the troops in question are good in HtH (this is equally true in both editions as far as I know) and in both cases characters tend to be highly survivable (barring freak accidents that occur from time to time in both games). But overall the 3rd/4th edition character's ability to take down 3+ models a round and potentially cause a squad to break and get cut down, by himself, is what gives the newer editions the advantage here.

What advantages did 2nd Ed. characters have then? Well some were great tank hunters, they worked well in dedicated assault units as something that would stop them from wasting too much time killing an enemy character doing the same, they made great anti-characters (though after the character is dead they become largely useless), they were decent shooters (this is where they tend to outshine 3rd/4th edition characters as the high BS allowed them to negate cover from time to time) and some had psychic abilities (to help with all of the above).

All told it was really only psykers that could get cheesy but they relied on drawing random cards and as such could end up doing nothing during a game if the cards were bad. In the end characters were good against other characters and vehicles (if equipped properly but that was fairly expensive) but against infantry they got bogged down (and vice versa). Unfortunately they made for an expensive tarpit so the two former uses tend to be more popular. About the only good anti-infantry characters were those that had large bases (Avatar, Greater Daemons) but they tended to cost 200+ points and could be targetted by the big guns (which did multiple wounds).

All in all I would take a 3rd/4th Ed. character in a pinch, 2nd Ed. characters were strong but not nearly as deadly as many make them out to be, they really just get an extra unmodified save. I know it is easy to look at the stats of 2nd Ed. characters and think how nasty they must have been (SM Commander had WS 7, S/T 5, I 7 and 3 attacks) but the games were incredibly different and those stats don't mean the same thing anymore. Those stats would be amazing in 3rd/4th but in 2nd they were good but didn't make the SM Commander a god.

Looking at the evidence and relating my experience form all three editions I find it safe to say that 3rd/4th edition characters are much more able to affect games than their 2nd edition counterparts. I think the accusations of herohammer are often misplaced (just like many of those things people talk about in 2nd edition, such as game length and overwatch being the only tactic available ;)).

Characters have always been powerful in 40k and no edition has really ever fixed that (though the new codices have curbed their power and made them less survivable). In the end characters were big fancy point-sinks that ended up being the player's RP representation on the table (which is damn fun really, it was like playing a TTG with an RPG attached).

BrainFireBob
03-12-2007, 03:22
Are they more able to affect games, or more *reliably* able to affect games?

Ronin_eX
03-12-2007, 04:13
More able to effect it and more reliably in my opinion. Many of the best characters in 2nd were expensive, situational and only narrowly effective (the Warp Spider Exarch made to kill characters and vehicles for one). And if you tend to go for the normal house rule set (no vortex grenades, no viral outbreak) then 2nd edition characters lost their main tool of destruction (fairly random after the first application though). In 4th edition my master gives the whole army leadership 10 and can kill a fair amount in hand-to-hand and shooting. The same character in 2nd only effects his squad's leadership, can still be killed even if in a squad and will usually only provide a few extra kills on his own (but they will be fairly reliable for all that).

Characters in 2nd were reliable but only effective if they specialized (and even then the specialization would either be character killing or tank hunting). They would rarely ever get their point values back if they were used like we use them today (charge into close combat). Characters in 3rd/4th are more effective and reliable in almost every way because they can kill more and often have greater effects on their armies. There were some overpowered characters in 2nd but that is no different than in 3rd/4th. Overall the power level of characters never went down during 3rd edition despite it claiming to have fixed herohammer. In the end it just got a little worse.

All in all I'd say it was vehicles that were likely more powerful than characters, luckily characters made a good counter to them so you got something of a rock-paper-scissors thing going (though a vehicle could still paste a character and infantry could still paste a vehicle if need be). In the end our group always just tended to have our characters meet in combat while battle raged around them and vehicles were fairly rare (they tended to be expensive for the most part).

Most of the imbalances in 2nd edition came from the players. The game had some specifics for balance that were stated time and time again in the book. I played with those regulations and never had a problem. That's why all these complaints make me go :confused: as I never saw too much of it. To have a nice balanced game of 2nd edition just follow the basic guidlines in the rules:

- Use Scenarios: line up and shoot games are boring
- Use at least 50% terrain coverage or more
- Don't place high terrain in deployment zones as it causes more gun-line games.
- Get rid of virus outbreak (not in the rulebook but later said by Andy Chambers in White Dwarf)
- Play a game between 1000-2000 points (3000 point games are supposed to take a while according to the rulebook)
- For normal games make it 4 turns max.
- Average to-hit modifiers when firing with groups (if the majority of the squad is in short range then they all are, if half the squad is in cover then use that modifier)

With all of these things in mind I have never had a game of 2nd edition that dragged on for more than a couple hours at most, overwatch was never overpowering, vehicles never ruled the table, characters were useful but never killed whole armies (or even squads) before the end of the game and maneuvering and positioning became paramount. If you treat each game of 2nd like you treat a game of Apocalypse (i.e. it is not a tournament, it is a game and you are in it to have fun) then you are already playing in the spirit of the game.

2nd had its downsides, its clunky bits, its cheesy units and imbalanced lists but so did 3rd and so does 4th. In the end 2nd edition is still fun and it is still rather unique among wargames for some of the sheer randomness it can produce (such as 5 warp spiders activating their warp packs and 4 warp spiders and a lord of change arriving on the other end :D). Even my worst game of 2nd edition was more fun and memorable than my best game in 3rd or 4th edition (and I have had some damn fun games of 4th) and I am more likely to tell one of those stories than I am to relate something that happened in a more recent game.

That is why I still play it when I can, it makes for a great story after and is damn fun the entire time during play. In any case I just went into full on ramble mode and I am now far from my point... looks liking I'm hitching a ride back. :p

In other news I'm currently recollecting missing pieces of my 2nd edition stuff (just got a mint Dark Millenium box :D) and once it all trickles in I am going to start playing a lot more 2nd edition games. Though I have the battle bible their is just no replacement for having all that nice stuff in a solid form (especially the boot template, how I missed it). The best part is that we now have all these awesome models to play it with. Even better is that because all point costs were usually doubled in 2nd edition making new armies for it is cheap (so much so that I'm probably making a Bad Moon Freebooter Ork list when I get through repainting my DA) and all current armies can be ported over with a little imagination (well except for Tau, that requires a lot of imagination). Ah, this is going to be fun.

Apollyon
03-12-2007, 16:35
What you seem to be implying is that "New" 40K has traded tactics that work in the real world for it's own abstract in game tactics. Perhaps this is why "Old" 40K still has such a following.




Because throwing grenades, sprinting, and that host of other things were just over-detailed fluff, they didn't improve the essential game mechanics and in the case of things like over-watch they interfered with the development of tactical acumen by multiplying out the risk of actions like hoofing it towards a prepared enemy and thus causing players to perceive more risk than worth taking and often resulting in stalemates where the players were too timid to play!

Empirically speaking Warhammer players are risk-adverse. Just look at the outcry over the new Chaos Codex. It's powerful at the cost of being risky, but instead of taking that risk in stride At the risk of reiterating a cliche, I blame Space Marines.

Space Marines are the army for the risk-adverse (why yes, I am collecting an army of them, why do you ask?) - they're more likely to take saving throws, make saving throws, pass priority tests, pinning tests, and so on. They automatically rally, even if under 50%, and they resist adverse effects of plasma weapons well.

Back during 2nd edition Space Marines didn't have all of the perks they do now, though they had some they no longer have. Doesn't that mean we can't blame Space Marines? No, but that's because, thanks to the granularity of systems employing modifiers to maximize outcomes and thus encourage certain tactics and strategies, stuff had to be really reliable for players to take them. Which meant that armies tended to look the same, whether Ork, Eldar, or Space Marine. Lots of saves on characters, and lots of characters because they tended to survive better than squads or vehicles. Transport vehicles weren't reliable enough to suit players that wanted to just drive them forward, and Terminators were so reliable that they were ubiquitous.

Even these days Fire Prisms and Shining Spears had to be made even better than they were to meet the low standard of risk that Eldar players were willing to accept in preference to the Star-cannon toting Guardian hordes that could grind a little. That said Eldar armies are more fragile, more hit-or-miss, these days and I think we see a higher caliber of Eldar player emerge as a result. Likewise we see a higher-caliber of Necron player emerge when they get away from the phalanx formation (sure it does nothing interesting, but it stays there and does nothing the whole time, which is great if you're just grinding rather than playing over objectives) and start doing risky things like taking Wraiths, Tomb Spyders, and (heaven forbid) Pariahs. Otherwise people aren't willing to take these units because they don't want to risk losing!

Rikens
03-12-2007, 17:13
What you seem to be implying is that "New" 40K has traded tactics that work in the real world for it's own abstract in game tactics. Perhaps this is why "Old" 40K still has such a following. If I seem to be implying that then I have failed to communicate my ideas to you.

Apollyon
03-12-2007, 17:30
Well real world tactics like sprinting for cover, throwing smoke to block LOS and goining into overwatch have no place in "New" 40K ..but since the "New" game has its own ingame tactics I can't see what other point your getting at.



If I seem to be implying that then I have failed to communicate my ideas to you.

Rikens
03-12-2007, 18:07
Having explicit rules to represent sprinting, throwing smoke, or going into overwatch does not make 2nd edition more realistic than 4th edition. It just gives players the option of doing stupidly unrealistic stuff like not sprinting for cover, not throwing smoke, or not going into overwatch. Having a rule to explicitly represent overwatch by allowing a unit to absorb such-and-such a penalty to attack during the opposing side's movement is not more realistic than any lack of such a rule when the sides take turns, as in all editions of Warhammer 40k, is supposed to represent the dynamic action of a real-world battlefield. It only provides the illusion of doing so when the players do not imagine their forces doing so anyways! It's fluff, something to massage the inactive imagination.

Given that both games share the same level of abstraction, taking turns to move and attack and so on, the 'realistic' rules of 2nd edition are simply fluff that do not contribute to the problem-space of the game. Think of it as though the models in 2nd edition were so detailed that the sculptors gave them pores on their skin. At that scale most painters would obscure the pores, only a magnifying glass would reveal them, and the models would still have bizarre cartoonish proportions that the 'realism' of that detail would be irrelevant in the face of pumpkin-headed models representing "genetically enhanced" space marines.

The miniatures and rules of 40k are an unrealistic representation of an unrealistic fantasy of warfare. Whether it's giving models realistic skin pores or realistic overwatch rules, the game is essentially unrealistic. It is, after all, a game first and foremost, not a simulation. What is important in a game are the problem-spaces they afford players for study or entertainment. Entertainment-wise the rules are decorated by cartoons of soldiers, scenery, and actions - inessential but fun to have anyways. Some of the rules are there purely to be decorated, which is okay until implementing these rules isn't worth the effort (throwing grenades) or detracts from the essential problem-space (overwatch), or their decorations are superfluous (sprinting).

Chaos and Evil
03-12-2007, 18:49
the game is essentially unrealistic.

2nd edition *is* closer to being a simulation system than 4th edition is.

4th edition is undoubtedly a cartoon-style game... personally I think that's where most of the fun of 40k is to be found! (GW sells the SG systems for those who want simulation-style mass battle games).

FooFighter
03-12-2007, 19:29
I've recently started playing 2nd edition again, and I have to say it shows the current edition for what it is... an over simplified game that's more about who can roll the most dice as to actual tactics.

I had 2 games today and I can honestly say I had more fun playing these 2 games then I have had since 3rd edition came out.


2 games in one day? It must have been small games or utter annihilation surely?

My memories of 2nd Ed were centred around exceptionally detailed battles, in which the action wasn't centred wholey around CC and Shooting Phase, but infact pre-game (Strategy Cards, Psychic Powers) and throughout the whole turn it was pretty much non stop. Each vehicle had crew which could be killed, vehicles tended to be a little more trickier to destroy (more often losing a weapon than a vehicle).

I did enjoy it, but I since sold/lost all my 2nd Edition rules and codices - would love to get back into it, but I don't know if I would have the patience to sit down for 10hrs for a 2000pt battle.

Ronin_eX
03-12-2007, 19:59
2 games in one day? It must have been small games or utter annihilation surely?

I did enjoy it, but I since sold/lost all my 2nd Edition rules and codices - would love to get back into it, but I don't know if I would have the patience to sit down for 10hrs for a 2000pt battle.

Hyperbole for the win! 10 hours though? The game was detailed but not that detailed. A 2000 point game usually takes 2 hours max with a standard 1500 point game taking the same time or less depending on how well matched the players are. No game of 2nd edition I ever play stretched beyond 3 hours.

I still don't know where this comes from myself, every time 2nd edition comes up games get longer and longer. The only games I could see taking 10 hours to play would be "mega battles" of more than 3000 points which the system wasn't really designed for. 2nd edition was a skirmish game and when played between 1000-2000 points you could usually get a game in that would last 1 hour to 2 hours.


My memories of 2nd Ed were centred around exceptionally detailed battles, in which the action wasn't centred wholey around CC and Shooting Phase, but infact pre-game (Strategy Cards, Psychic Powers) and throughout the whole turn it was pretty much non stop. Each vehicle had crew which could be killed, vehicles tended to be a little more trickier to destroy (more often losing a weapon than a vehicle).

Pre-game strategy came into it (to be fair it comes into play in 2rd/4th even more, but I digress) but that is nothing new. Strategy Cards were useful but random, the same can be said of psychic powers. Neither of these could be relied on so as far as strategy goes in this case it revolves around how you can use these resources to help achieve you goals (much like stratagems but randomly determined to keep players from always choosing the best combination).

The game itself revolved around maneuvering your troops into advantageous positions (minimize negative mods to hit through combination or LOS and range) while trying to stop the enemy from doing the same (setting up ambushes and covering fire with overwatch, or using a strong CC unit to make movement into certain zones dangerous). At the same time you had to complete your mission which could certainly throw a wrench into your plans depending on what you chose (balanced lists tended to be good for anything that wasn't line-up and kill).

To accomplish all this the system gave you various tools and systems that you could play within that would allow for some truly brilliant tactical displays (or miserable failure, which were fun too). It was harder to guess how a game would play out which meant most games we played went down to the wire in terms of who would win.

Shooting was certainly more powerful than CC (as it should be in a sci-fi wargame) but CC could be devastating for specialized assault troops so in the end it balanced out and maneuvering to stay out of enemy LOS and using cover to make yourself harder to hit as you advanced (don't forget that if you enter or emerge from cover then those on overwatch are at a -1 to hit your squad) became paramount in assault tactics while picking good fire lanes, maneuvering for optimal range and keeping LOS flexible became hallmarks of shooting tactics.

So long as you stuck to the guidelines in the rulebook (posted above) then games tended to be fast and furious.

Apollyon
03-12-2007, 20:43
If the game was such that there were 5 space marines mounted to a 3 inch base I would whole haeartedly agree, however the level of abstraction you describe doesn't work in 1 figure = 1 troop scale and only begins to work when you have "bases" of intantry. This the breakdown of "New" 40K it wants to be 2 opposing things a "based" infantry game and a 1=1 infantry game and it doesn't work well as either. You could "fix" "New" 40k's errors simply by mounting 5 trooops to a 3 inch base and the abstractions would start making sense.


Having explicit rules to represent sprinting, throwing smoke, or going into overwatch does not make 2nd edition more realistic than 4th edition. It just gives players the option of doing stupidly unrealistic stuff like not sprinting for cover, not throwing smoke, or not going into overwatch. Having a rule to explicitly represent overwatch by allowing a unit to absorb such-and-such a penalty to attack during the opposing side's movement is not more realistic than any lack of such a rule when the sides take turns, as in all editions of Warhammer 40k, is supposed to represent the dynamic action of a real-world battlefield. It only provides the illusion of doing so when the players do not imagine their forces doing so anyways! It's fluff, something to massage the inactive imagination.

Given that both games share the same level of abstraction, taking turns to move and attack and so on, the 'realistic' rules of 2nd edition are simply fluff that do not contribute to the problem-space of the game. Think of it as though the models in 2nd edition were so detailed that the sculptors gave them pores on their skin. At that scale most painters would obscure the pores, only a magnifying glass would reveal them, and the models would still have bizarre cartoonish proportions that the 'realism' of that detail would be irrelevant in the face of pumpkin-headed models representing "genetically enhanced" space marines.

The miniatures and rules of 40k are an unrealistic representation of an unrealistic fantasy of warfare. Whether it's giving models realistic skin pores or realistic overwatch rules, the game is essentially unrealistic. It is, after all, a game first and foremost, not a simulation. What is important in a game are the problem-spaces they afford players for study or entertainment. Entertainment-wise the rules are decorated by cartoons of soldiers, scenery, and actions - inessential but fun to have anyways. Some of the rules are there purely to be decorated, which is okay until implementing these rules isn't worth the effort (throwing grenades) or detracts from the essential problem-space (overwatch), or their decorations are superfluous (sprinting).

mark.k
03-12-2007, 21:39
when me and my brother came back to 40k at the start of this year the last games we played were 2ed some of the things i rember saying was weres the psychic phase no throwing grenades,ranges are shorter, no ramming even with the big tanks, no splitting fire witch seems a waste ,vehicles turning as much as they like plus i dont like see the white dwarf reports with just a few bits of terrain now a few things i do like pinning rule ,coversaves which is nogood for marines most of the time ,perils of the warp ,dangerous terrain test,force organisation chart, all of witch would work ok in 2ed ps dont kill me for saying this :)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Warhammer-40k-boxed-set-2nd-edition-OOP_W0QQitemZ170174982288QQihZ007QQcategoryZ31399Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Warhammer-40k-Dark-Millenium-boxed-set-2nd-edition-OOP_W0QQitemZ170174946882QQihZ007QQcategoryZ31399Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Rikens
03-12-2007, 22:28
If the game was such that there were 5 space marines mounted to a 3 inch base I would whole haeartedly agree, however the level of abstraction you describe doesn't work in 1 figure = 1 troop scale and only begins to work when you have "bases" of intantry. This the breakdown of "New" 40K it wants to be 2 opposing things a "based" infantry game and a 1=1 infantry game and it doesn't work well as either. You could "fix" "New" 40k's errors simply by mounting 5 trooops to a 3 inch base and the abstractions would start making sense. There's more to the abstraction of Warhammer than how many models fit on one base. That's way too narrow a view of the level of abstraction between actual warfare and models moved taking turns and rolling dice to resolve actions. The abstractions will make sense if you care to note all of the important things that have been abstracted away in all editions of Warhammer, and all games of the sort that Warhammer 40k is.

Omniassiah
04-12-2007, 00:11
Well real world tactics like sprinting for cover, throwing smoke to block LOS and goining into overwatch have no place in "New" 40K ..but since the "New" game has its own ingame tactics I can't see what other point your getting at.

Because most of those Real world tactics don't actually work as you think they do in real life.

Sprinting for cover - US army saying "I'm up he sees me I'm down." The actual distance you move is the same as a combat walk while firing, you just cover it quicker. During tactical movement when ever your bounding you should be saying that in your head, if your not in cover by the time your done your dead. you don't look at cover in combat and say well I can make it to that one in half the time as if I tried to shoot and move so I guess I should run twice as far to give them more time to shoot me since I'm not firing back. End result is sprinting for cover wouldn't provide the benefits you think it would.

Throwing smoke - Smoke launchers for vehicles are too powerful. Concealment does not equal cover. Smoke does not protect units behind it best way to represent it would be a 6+ cover save. Real world usage of infantry deployed smoke(Arty deployed is a whole other ballpark and would block line of sight ala the blind barrage in Apoc) is for marking locations and to cover a withdrawal. You just can't reliably place smoke where it needs to be... in front of the enemy not you. I watch somebody toss smoke before to cover an advanced, him and his buddies never cleared the smoke line as they all died from MG fired blind through it. You want smoke grenades play a double blind game of 40k. Thats were the true tactical use of smoke grenades can be used to cover the movement of your troops out of a position to hide the withdraw or repositioning from the enemy not protect them from fire.. also make sure you include rules for shooting into areas with no valid target though.

Overwatch - not as effective in real life as you think it is. Only works in wargames where you might actually leave a model out in the open long enough. Suppressive fire is a much better rule that should be added. Part of the old army saying above covers the timing to prevent overwatching troops from being effective. Don't think of 6" as the maximum move a troop can make in the period of time but the common effective distance that troops are able to maneuver. Even my slow ****(13 min 2 mile) could cover about the same distance as the speedy 8min 2 mile guy. Neither of us are going to be up/out of cover long enough to make it matter because we practice to get to ground BEFORE that much time elapses.

In fact play any wargame double blind. For those who don't know what it is Double blind means each player has their own seperate board and a third master board watched by a GM. Only the master board has every single model in play on it. The others only have the enemy models that can be seen by the other side. thats how you play a REAL wargame with tactics. Your going to need a lot of house rules to get it right as well as at least 3 or each model represented. The old Close Combat PC games from MS are great to represent what you should be able to do. Sadly as long as you the commander is all knowing then many true RL tactics just don't work and must be either removed or butchered for playability sake.

Sorry for the rant, the vet in me hates when people refer to real-life tactics but seem to have never been in a firefight before. Things that sound good on paper like using smoke grenades to cover an advance have never seen the effects of a pair of machine guns sweeping the smoke cover at thigh height killing or wounding a majority of the assault where the LOS was "blocked."

Chaos and Evil
04-12-2007, 00:43
Sorry for the rant, the vet in me hates when people refer to real-life tactics but seem to have never been in a firefight before. Things that sound good on paper like using smoke grenades to cover an advance have never seen the effects of a pair of machine guns sweeping the smoke cover at thigh height killing or wounding a majority of the assault where the LOS was "blocked."

What if you were at -1 to hit when firing through smoke, instead of being fully blocked.

'course, 40k doesn't have to-hit modifiers, but if it did... well, the Rapid Fire rule is kinda a replacement for them, so it'll have to go first... :p

Rikens
04-12-2007, 01:12
Chaos and Evil: And easy way to avoid to hit modifiers that way would be re-rolling, but that's a little off-topic.

Omniassiah: Thanks for pointing that out, since I haven't been in a firefight and thus can't rightly claim whether some game mechanic reflects an actual firefight. That said, I'm sure bolters, power swords, daemons, and teleporting technomagical tool-users aren't realistic either!

Cypher, the Emperor
04-12-2007, 01:16
I like 2nd better than 3rd/4th, but overall I'm still prefer Warzone to all of them.

Oh yeah, and I still think it was awesome that Shurukien Catapults use to be just as good as Stormbolters...

Ronin_eX
04-12-2007, 03:23
I like 2nd better than 3rd/4th, but overall I'm still prefer Warzone to all of them.

Oh yeah, and I still think it was awesome that Shurukien Catapults use to be just as good as Stormbolters...

I certainly agree on the Warzone bit, as a straight up wargame I find it to be the most rewarding strategically and tactically. It also manages to play fairly quickly and it uses a much better die for play (the D20).

That said it lacks the random factor that I love in 2nd edition. I've actually converted 40k over to Warzone once or twice but I found it lost too much in translation and still just felt like Warzone with 40k units.

I think this mostly has to do with the fact that both systems are so well suited to the backgrounds they portray. 2nd edition portrays a gritty, deadly universe where death comes quickly and supersience/psychic powers are unreliable and often quite dangerous. It is an exercise in controlled carnage.

Warzone is a pulpy sci-fi TTG where men are men and shambling undead hordes are, well... you get the idea. Shooting is deadly and constant (it is essentially WWI in space after all) and making mistakes can end badly. It is one of the finest platoon level skirmish games ever created and is a damn fun background.

Also, shuriken catapults were better than storm-bolters as they had a better save mod. Though in the hands of a marine a stormbolter could pump out more fire (if they stood still bolters, bolt pistols and stormbolters fired twice which could give the stormbolter 2-8 shots potentially).

Lexington
04-12-2007, 04:27
I like 2nd better than 3rd/4th, but overall I'm still prefer Warzone to all of them.
Mmmm...Warzone. Did anyone try the Excelsior version? I'm told it worked rather well, but it wasn't around long enough for me to find out.

Personally, I'm partial to VOR, which ran on a somewhat similar system.

Omniassiah
04-12-2007, 04:29
What if you were at -1 to hit when firing through smoke, instead of being fully blocked.

'course, 40k doesn't have to-hit modifiers, but if it did... well, the Rapid Fire rule is kinda a replacement for them, so it'll have to go first... :p

I like and hate hit modifiers and I really love the rapid fire rule. Rapid fire is very realistic with most "Fast Freddy" (time to see how many army guys are out there ;)) shots taking place in no more then 1-2 seconds from see to shoot. Long range shots always take a bit longer since you need to be more careful with your breathing.

Hit modifiers are great as long as they are utilized appropriately, If they are over done which they normally are then its gets stupid and unrealistic quickly. Shooting at Concealed not covered targets a -1 works great. Modifiers for range are silly in my experience, Soldiers no their effective accuracy with their weapons. and generally can tell if a target is to far to waste shots. The max range therefore doesn't necessarily represent the max effective range of a weapon but the maximum range that your soldiers will fire at and expect the shot to actually count! give me a M16 and I'll shoot targets 50-150m out with decent accuracy, with my M249 LMG I would be taking long shots at 400m over Iron sights 600+ with a scope and expecting to hit.

As for the Sci-fi mystical stuff you just got to make that up the basic combat stuff can be discussed with regards to which rules might be beneficial

P.S. for you non- U.S. Army guys, "Fast Freddy" is the 50m pop-up target which is only up for 3 seconds. Most guys have it down in 1-2 and you hope nobody finds out if you missed it.

Warzone was a fun game... Another one that benefited from double blind games and lots of cover otherwise it could turn into a HIDE/WAIT fest

One more thing :). I look at 40k out side of tournaments like most role-playing games. The rules are a Guidelines and Suggestions on how the game plays. If you don't like how something works talk with your opponent and change it. You play me and want to try something different then the rule book fine, lets figure a new way to do it and try it. Sometimes you can make a better rule then the corresponding rule from 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ed.

Ronin_eX
04-12-2007, 04:36
Mmmm...Warzone. Did anyone try the Excelsior version? I'm told it worked rather well, but it wasn't around long enough for me to find out.

Personally, I'm partial to VOR, which ran on a somewhat similar system.

I swear by it actually it has all the character of first edition and all the balance of second. Which reminds me if you want a game where heroes really did rule the roost without houserules then Warzone 1st edition was where it was at. Characters could take down whole squads in one turn (command helmet, automedic, ranged combat upgrades and a Nimrod Autocannon made for one nasty character). But that was fixed in later editions by taking away the ability to load them up with wargear (funny how that seems to balance things :p) and give them tons of special abilities to up their lethality. Despite all that it was still fun as hell if you played with people who just played for laughs.

In any case here (http://www.mutantpedia.com/Warzone.html) is a site where you can download pretty much any Warzone related thing from any edition. As it is all OOP and its liscence untouched this isn't going behind anyone's back (FFG bought the Mutant Chronicles liscence not the Warzone TTG liscence). So knock yourself out.

Omniassiah
04-12-2007, 04:41
Sweat I'm missing some of my first edition Warzone books. Might have to talk to a friend and get a few more games in as it was a good system.

Omniassiah
04-12-2007, 04:43
stupid double post from lag :(

Ronin_eX
04-12-2007, 04:52
Yeah, I've been wanting to play it again lately, possibly doing a co-op Doomtroopers vs. shambling undead game. This is a special scenario in the third edition but I wanted to do it with a little pinch of Herozone where individuals cut down a horde of them before running out of ammo and going at it with chain bayonets. :D

WLBjork
04-12-2007, 08:59
Oh yeah, and I still think it was awesome that Shurukien Catapults use to be just as good as Stormbolters...

Apart from the fact that they were better - they had an extra -1ASM.

Chaos and Evil
04-12-2007, 10:59
Chaos and Evil: And easy way to avoid to hit modifiers that way would be re-rolling, but that's a little off-topic.


Easy yes, but also more time-intensive, and 40k is a slow enough game system to begin with.

Rikens
04-12-2007, 17:11
Warhammer 40k is only as slow as the players make it. By comparison I've played Blood Bowl games that last 3 (painful) hours, and I've had Blood Bowl games that last half an hour no hardly any early turn-overs! A 2000pt game of Warhammer 40k in an hour and a half (the half for set-up and take-down, the hour for play) is not unreasonable. Mind you, I think a good game of anything should last between 1/2hr and 1hr.

Carlos
04-12-2007, 17:48
I have recently been playing 2nd edition again. It shows up the present edition for what it is:

A perfected, streamlined game that forgoes loads of pointless modifiers that slow the game down, rolling constantly for a pile of templates, a pointless psychic phase and a slow movement system and relies more on the memory of a few key rules than piles of additional cards, sheets and multi-sided dice.

2nd edition allows me to take my whole army into battle and then spend the best part of 9 hours playing 4 turns as half the models are pinned by overwatch and the other half cannot move due to RAD grenades being fired everywhere. It makes the fast-paced nature of 4th edition, where one can finish a 4000 pts game in 4-5 hours look like a hare compared to its tortoise-like nature.

And the best part is charging 50 models together for an assault then having to roll for each model seperately instead of them all at once like in the modern day.

2nd edition belongs where it matters: Necromunda.

40K is better off without it.

Apollyon
04-12-2007, 18:19
Smoke isn't cover it's concealment. If you start thinking smoke is bulletproof thinks like that happen, but dumping 2 or 3 HC whites then attacking from a different position DOES work. The idea is to screen LOS then move then attack, or better yet smoke then use thermals and shoot through the smoke. This doesn't work with WP as the temperature of the smoke obscures body temp on thermal optics.

I have always took the movement in 2nd ed as patrol speed not sprint for cover speed. If you assume the move characteristic is "tactical running" then you would be correct.

Overwatch has a built in negative mod (-1) to show the relative lack of effectiveness, but while you are moving aren't your squadmembers on overwatch. When you move up a fireteam what is the other fireteam doing? Overwatch?

There should be suppressive fire too, with little chance to kill but requiring a morale check to shoot back.

And short of MILES gear you are right that double blind is the only way to wargame. "Steel Panthers" is a good computer game that manages double blind well.





Because most of those Real world tactics don't actually work as you think they do in real life.

Sprinting for cover - US army saying "I'm up he sees me I'm down." The actual distance you move is the same as a combat walk while firing, you just cover it quicker. During tactical movement when ever your bounding you should be saying that in your head, if your not in cover by the time your done your dead. you don't look at cover in combat and say well I can make it to that one in half the time as if I tried to shoot and move so I guess I should run twice as far to give them more time to shoot me since I'm not firing back. End result is sprinting for cover wouldn't provide the benefits you think it would.

Throwing smoke - Smoke launchers for vehicles are too powerful. Concealment does not equal cover. Smoke does not protect units behind it best way to represent it would be a 6+ cover save. Real world usage of infantry deployed smoke(Arty deployed is a whole other ballpark and would block line of sight ala the blind barrage in Apoc) is for marking locations and to cover a withdrawal. You just can't reliably place smoke where it needs to be... in front of the enemy not you. I watch somebody toss smoke before to cover an advanced, him and his buddies never cleared the smoke line as they all died from MG fired blind through it. You want smoke grenades play a double blind game of 40k. Thats were the true tactical use of smoke grenades can be used to cover the movement of your troops out of a position to hide the withdraw or repositioning from the enemy not protect them from fire.. also make sure you include rules for shooting into areas with no valid target though.

Overwatch - not as effective in real life as you think it is. Only works in wargames where you might actually leave a model out in the open long enough. Suppressive fire is a much better rule that should be added. Part of the old army saying above covers the timing to prevent overwatching troops from being effective. Don't think of 6" as the maximum move a troop can make in the period of time but the common effective distance that troops are able to maneuver. Even my slow ****(13 min 2 mile) could cover about the same distance as the speedy 8min 2 mile guy. Neither of us are going to be up/out of cover long enough to make it matter because we practice to get to ground BEFORE that much time elapses.

In fact play any wargame double blind. For those who don't know what it is Double blind means each player has their own seperate board and a third master board watched by a GM. Only the master board has every single model in play on it. The others only have the enemy models that can be seen by the other side. thats how you play a REAL wargame with tactics. Your going to need a lot of house rules to get it right as well as at least 3 or each model represented. The old Close Combat PC games from MS are great to represent what you should be able to do. Sadly as long as you the commander is all knowing then many true RL tactics just don't work and must be either removed or butchered for playability sake.

Sorry for the rant, the vet in me hates when people refer to real-life tactics but seem to have never been in a firefight before. Things that sound good on paper like using smoke grenades to cover an advance have never seen the effects of a pair of machine guns sweeping the smoke cover at thigh height killing or wounding a majority of the assault where the LOS was "blocked."

Apollyon
04-12-2007, 18:33
Yeah, you can tell you're Army, only 150m. ;) In the Corp that's PISTOL range. :p



I'll shoot targets 50-150m out with decent accuracy, with my M249 LMG I would be taking long shots at 400m over Iron sights 600+ with a scope and expecting to hit.

.

Ronin_eX
04-12-2007, 21:45
I have recently been playing 2nd edition again. It shows up the present edition for what it is:

A perfected, streamlined game that forgoes loads of pointless modifiers that slow the game down, rolling constantly for a pile of templates, a pointless psychic phase and a slow movement system and relies more on the memory of a few key rules than piles of additional cards, sheets and multi-sided dice.

Perfect though? Wow talk about over-exaggerating, it is nice but it is still a clunky system (who uses tables anymore, that is so Rolemaster). Modifiers wont slow the game down much. In most cases you are already comparing values which to the human brain is a hop-skip-jump away from coming up with the difference. The movement system, slow? Too many rules *looks through rulebook*. Let's see remembering a movement value (you have to do this for different troop types in the current system along with movement based special rules), running (double said value), charging (see running), and... Really that is it. Very complicated as we can all see.

While not exactly pointless the advanced psychic phase is pretty clunky. Their is always the basic version in the main book though (no cards, dice based, fairly quick and more or less as simple as it is now) which works just as well and even curbs the power of psykers quite nicely.

The cards could be rather clunky but for the most part they were limited to strategy cards (chosen before a game and a fun little optional bit to have) and the psychic phase (which has a die based option in the main book). All the other cards were quick references for wargear and vehicles (helpful so you weren't always flipping through the book).

In any case all dice are multi-sided and I don't know a gamer worth his salt that doesn't own things other than a D6. In any case those dice only came up for vehicles and multi-wound models and were not used for rank and file troops (as in most cases they only had a single wound).

And the rolling for all those templates is a lot faster if you aren't playing 3000+ point games. Don't blame the system for something it admits it can't do well (large games).



2nd edition allows me to take my whole army into battle and then spend the best part of 9 hours playing 4 turns as half the models are pinned by overwatch and the other half cannot move due to RAD grenades being fired everywhere. It makes the fast-paced nature of 4th edition, where one can finish a 4000 pts game in 4-5 hours look like a hare compared to its tortoise-like nature.

And the best part is charging 50 models together for an assault then having to roll for each model seperately instead of them all at once like in the modern day.

2nd edition belongs where it matters: Necromunda.

40K is better off without it.

Part of me is thinking that you really aren't following the guidelines for 2nd edition and are treating it, instead, like 3rd/4th. Using all your models for a 9 hour long game? Why not play at 1500 points where the game is balanced for? Overwatch bugging you? You should be using 50% cover at least. I've never gotten the "bigger is better" mentality myself, why do people want to play a 4000 point game and then wonder why it takes so long (the rule book tells you games larger than 3000 points are going to take a while).

I wouldn't play a 500 point game of 3rd/4th edition and say it is the worst skirmish system ever. Because 3rd/4th is not skirmish scale, 2nd is and should be played to its strengths. If you dislike small games then it wont be for you but for those of us that want 40k skirmish both RT and 2nd fit the bill.

Again, it seems the only reason people seem to think 2nd edition is slow is because they try to force the system to do thinks it shouldn't be doing. Is there something wrong with playing smaller games that I am not aware of though. I like 4th edition for being able to play larger games but it is crap for skirmish scale (both Combat Patrol and Kill Team are poor substitutes for skirmish lovers). 2nd edition fills that gap while RT and Necromunda do squad based games well. Play a game to its strengths and it usually wont let you down.

If you want to improve your 2nd edition experience give the rules a read through and listen to the suggestions they give you. I wholly agree that large games would bog down and suck in 2nd but that is why you don't play those. 1500-2000 point games are a good pace (most of my games were 2 hours max which is the same time frame it takes me for a 4th edition game at 2000 points currently).

I can't think of a single thing that GW has ever made that could be considered perfect (even Bloodbowl and Spacehulk has a few problem ;)) and stating that seems to be an attempt to simply be contrary. I will agree that 4th can do mega-battles better than 2nd could but then again 2nd does skirmish scale better than 4th could ever hope to. So don't blame a system for user error, 2nd edition isn't for everyone but it is still quite playable and quite fun for those that enjoy it.

This thread isn't a contest to say which version is the best, it is simply to talk about 2nd edition and those that still play it. I still play 4th edition but it isn't my favourite system (that would be a tie between Infinity and Warzone actually). No one is saying your favourite game sucks, they're just stating that they like something else better (or not). So let's not let this devolve intop a mud slinging match about which edition is the best because they are all (except for 3rd) good at what they do.

[edit]


Overwatch has a built in negative mod (-1) to show the relative lack of effectiveness, but while you are moving aren't your squadmembers on overwatch. When you move up a fireteam what is the other fireteam doing? Overwatch?

There should be suppressive fire too, with little chance to kill but requiring a morale check to shoot back.

Actually this was supported by the system. On your own turn you could set a squad to Overwatch in the movement phase and they could cover a moving squad. At that point they could fire at another squad on Overwatch and that squad would not only take casualties but they would need to take a Ld check or be suppressed. In addition using Hiding + Overwatch could set up ambush situations. The -1 mod for firing at squads moving cover to cover on Overwatch was also a fairly good balance (especially if the squad stayed behind low cover the whole time as that would incur a cumulative penalty on the firers) as average troops (BS 3) would be hitting on a 5+ or worse (fast targets such as eldar/tyranid were good for this when on sprint) and even normal marines hit on a 4+. With sufficient cover (50%+) and intelligent movement Overwatch wasn't a huge deal (just another option). It was a rule with loads of uses and I really do regret its loss simply because people ignored the terrain rules and whined about it when they found out heavy weapons ruled the day on an empty board.

Omniassiah
05-12-2007, 03:03
Yeah, you can tell you're Army, only 150m. ;) In the Corp that's PISTOL range. :p

Hey I know I can't shoot crap with a M16. My M249 SAW qualifications though are just scary. 66 round belt for 11 targets.. I still have 55 rounds left and a perfect score. For some reason i never was good with small weapons, Large stuff and I'm obnoxious though.

redqueen
05-12-2007, 05:09
I've still got my 2nd edition rules and Eldar codex, possibly a few issues of WD kicking around too. I never play it anymore though. Sure, I had plenty of fun with it, but it's a different game. Most games I can remember were really static and assaults were a mess. Way too many rules additions all over the place that were hard to keep up with, and just generally bogged down gameplay. At least that's how I remember it.

Nowadays I like playing a more fast paced game with a much greater number of models and vehicles. For me it just works. That being said, maybe a game of 2nd edition for old times sake might be fun. I'd really have to read the rules again though....

Ronin_eX
05-12-2007, 08:02
I've always liked how modular the system is myself. They gave you so many options and it was easy to houserule certain things (simply taking certain cards out of play for instance). There were loads of "advanced" options but the core system (minus the Dark Millenium stuff) is pretty good if you want a quick game. That said a lot of the fun was from the random carnage found in the add-ons so they still have their place.

Though the HtH system was rather clunky, but I think it manages to work well at its scale and is detailed enough to make battles between characters interesting. That and the vehicle rules (and maybe a non-card based psychic phase closer to the basic version in the main book) are likely the few major changes I would suggest. I recommend picking up a game of 2nd, just whip up a 1500 point list and go to town with it. It has its own old school charm that keeps me coming back for more.

Gen.Steiner
05-12-2007, 12:59
I remember a White Dwarf article which had Paul Sawyer recommending 1,000pt games with limited characters - low level psykers, that sort of thing - and which mentioned a little campaign he'd started. Genestealer Cult versus Guard I think it was.

2nd Edition is, as others have said, an excellent skirmish game. Keep your actions to platoon or reinforced platoon level and you'll be fine. :)

Doppleskanger
05-12-2007, 14:04
First up I think it's very cool people are doing this. Insane really, but very cool.

Personally the version I really enjoyed was the final Rouge Trader with the acetate targetting sheets and the half reasonable close combat rules, but that's just me.

Well I took a long brake then and got back into 40k towards the end of 3rd ed and have played a LOT of 4th ed.

Now I do see the point. The madness of the early systems was great fun. But 2nd ed went like this. 1st turn. 2nd turn. 3rd turn and you deploy your assasin and I loose the game. Go on, you know it's true!

You guys must be harking back to what, 94? I think nostalgia is probably clouding your judgement, but that's cool too. 2nd ed is so typical of GW at that time. REALLY complicated, basically broken (remember Advanced Space Crusade? Didn't work. Adeptus Titanicus? Didn't work). We used to play chaos vs eldar at 6000 pts and it took two full days, practically 24 hours, great fun and I still laugh at some of the things that happened...

I love hearing that you have players that are relaxed enough not to abuse the 2nd ed ruleset, but really those players could be trusted to bring fun armies into 4th ed, as we do at my club (we're kind of over the tournement thing now and just do wierd lists for a laugh).

But you are right too because the randomness, craziness and detail was enthralling...

Don't think this is a right or wrong kind of question but good luck to all of you, though I won't be going back myself

Carlos
05-12-2007, 17:42
Perfect though? Wow talk about over-exaggerating, it is nice but it is still a clunky system (who uses tables anymore, that is so Rolemaster).

The Problem with overwatch was that both armies would enter a stalemate whereby niether would move lest ye be blown to bits.

And whilst 1500 pts games are fine in theory, I always enjoyed playing larger games more, taking huge amounts of wargear, dead hard characters and pimped out vehicles. We always got together as a group (~4) and have huge bashes instead of smaller engagements.

2nd edition does work for smaller games, as Necromunda rightfully shows but this is why 3rd edition was made: for people like me who took armies instead of small gangs of troops. Thank the lord for Apocalypse, its the best thing GW ever made.

And the game uses 3 tables: To hit, to wound and vehicle damage, and most players know these off the top of their heads anyway!

Gen.Steiner
05-12-2007, 18:02
We used to play chaos vs eldar at 6000 pts and it took two full days, practically 24 hours, great fun and I still laugh at some of the things that happened...

6000 points? Madness! Heh, that's only 3K nowadays... :(


The Problem with overwatch was that both armies would enter a stalemate whereby niether would move lest ye be blown to bits.

Not enough cover, for starters, for seconds, Overwatch isn't the be-all and end-all people claim.

Ronin_eX
05-12-2007, 18:57
The Problem with overwatch was that both armies would enter a stalemate whereby niether would move lest ye be blown to bits.

And whilst 1500 pts games are fine in theory, I always enjoyed playing larger games more, taking huge amounts of wargear, dead hard characters and pimped out vehicles. We always got together as a group (~4) and have huge bashes instead of smaller engagements.

2nd edition does work for smaller games, as Necromunda rightfully shows but this is why 3rd edition was made: for people like me who took armies instead of small gangs of troops. Thank the lord for Apocalypse, its the best thing GW ever made.

The only problem with overwatch, as Gen. Steiner said, is lack of cover. I never had an army wide stalemate occur since there was always a way around (remember models only had a 90 degree arc of fire).

1500 point games are more than just "fine in theory" they are a blast. I say again if you want monster battle then the current edition is fine for that. It is highly abstract and this helps at the 3000+ point level. 2nd edition works at the 2000 below level and that is where its strength lies. Sure you can play games outside of either's point range and have fun but you shouldn't blame the system if it starts to show its weaknesses. I always found combat patrol worked poorly because the lack of troops made the game a lot more open to random chance (as there were no modifiers it became very hard to stack situations favourably) and tactics became less concrete as the lower number of troops gave less options. Likewise 2nd edition would start to slow down significantly above 2000 points as all of its options started a bit of a snowball effect.

I suggest putting aside your love of big games and try a small one instead. You can still make tough characters and take all kinds of funky wargear but the game will be quicker which allows you to get more in.


And the game uses 3 tables: To hit, to wound and vehicle damage, and most players know these off the top of their heads anyway!

Yup I've had those tables drilled into my head since I was 11 so it is a quick conversion from stat to roll. That said I still find it odd that a game system purporting to be "streamlined" wouldn't switch stats over to a roll over/under sytem where the stat is the roll (ala Warzone and Infinity). It would just seem a lot more logical that way so that new players didn't have to look up a stat and then look up what it meant.

I know players who still haven't memorized it perfectly but sit them down with Warzone for a couple of games and they'll hardly need to look at their unit cards to know what they are rolling to hit (with modifiers involved no less).

In the end GW's main system is still fairly clunky no matter how much it is cut down by and the sheer amount of dice rolling can slow it down at times. If they really wanted to streamline it then it needs more of a change than just cutting of loads of rules (especially when a lot of them added neither time nor complexity to the game). As it is I like 2nd edition because it feels to have a more complete and intuitive (in the sense that things you do seem to follow logical precedent more often than not) ruleset, though I still play 4th edition for when I want to deploy more of my army (with 12,000 points of DA in 2nd it wont be often that they ever make it to the table unless I go to the newer edition ;)).