PDA

View Full Version : Your least faveourite edition of 40k rules?



Im not saying1
10-05-2008, 15:57
I started playing 40k about 5 years ago, and that was when 3rd edition was coming near(ish) to it's end. Though im no veteren 4th ed. was wayyyy better than 3rd edition for me, and I bet it'll be better than 5th aswell (mostly because of the hinting of the 'no allies allowed'). What was your least faveourite edition, comment, vote, and please include comments about if you think with each edition 40k got better or worse.

bobbles
10-05-2008, 16:08
The los rules of 4th ed I hate just because the arguements they caused.

Bloodknight
10-05-2008, 16:14
3rd ed. A huge disappointment after 2nd ed, and a worse game than 4th in my eye.

theHandofGork
10-05-2008, 16:14
4th ed. was wayyyy better than 3rd edition

I disagree on this, when 3rd came out it was, imo, a leap from 2nd and much better than 4th since it was balanced. Codex creep destroyed that. The beginning of 3rd was the only point I've ever seen 40k resemble a balanced ruleset.

Never played RT, so can't comment on that.

So yeah, 4th is the worst in my mind.

Alpharius
10-05-2008, 16:17
3rd edition... No contest.

Which really isn't good, because with 5th Edition Jervishammer 40K coming...

Well, hello and "welcome" back 3rd!

Ugh!

sigur
10-05-2008, 16:18
3rd ed. A huge disappointment after 2nd ed, and a worse game than 4th in my eye.

Well, agreed. Not only a disappointment, more like a world collapsing. With 4th edition (as well as the slightly improved transport rules in WD, experimental vehicle rules and trial assault rules before 4th edition) they fixed the worst of the worst but still...

bobbles
10-05-2008, 16:18
Who said 1st ed they should be flogged, flayed, then dragged round back and shot

Trogdor
10-05-2008, 16:19
I think the major upheaval from 2nd to 3rd ed. put a lot of gamers that started playing 40k in the early 90's right off it. Not to say that these rules changes were bad in themselves - it's just that most of the 40k players I knew at that time stopped playing because their armies seemed utterly incompatible with the system or had changed in playstyle drastically.

leonmallett
10-05-2008, 16:32
Who said 1st ed they should be flogged, flayed, then dragged round back and shot


That would be me. Not an appropriate choice then?

To explain: when I bought WH40K: RT it was great. But in comparison to subsequent iterations it was a mess of a game, both in terms of rules and background (we do all remember those marines with slogans on their armour, don't we?). The changes I have seen have generally been for the better.

bobbles
10-05-2008, 16:48
That would be me. Not an appropriate choice then?

To explain: when I bought WH40K: RT it was great. But in comparison to subsequent iterations it was a mess of a game, both in terms of rules and background (we do all remeber those marines with slogans on their armour, don't we?). The changes I have seen have generally been for the better.

Well sorry you are entitled to your opinion, but the reason i love it is a fair portion of what you said were the bad points

leonmallett
10-05-2008, 16:50
Well sorry you are entitled to your opinion, but the reason i love it is a fair portion of what you said were the bad points

I am glad that you accept that. Does this mean that I won't be "flogged, flayed, then dragged round back and shot"? ;)

Just beacuse it is my least favourite doesn't mean that I don't think it was the most important - because I do.

Plastic Rat
10-05-2008, 16:51
That would be me. Not an appropriate choice then?

To explain: when I bought WH40K: RT it was great. But in comparison to subsequent iterations it was a mess of a game, both in terms of rules and background (we do all remember those marines with slogans on their armour, don't we?). The changes I have seen have generally been for the better.

I'm guessing then that you prefer having practically every decision in the game other than which direction to move in already made for you by the designers?


I am glad that you accept that. Does this mean that I won't be "flogged, flayed, then dragged round back and shot"? ;)


NOT necessarily... I'm mostly keeping you talking while the rest check if there are any cops still around... ;)

Seriously though, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm just reminded again how utterly opposite people's tastes can be. As much as I may complain, bellyache and whinge about what I see as abject stupidity on the parts of GW's designers currently, there are others who see it as a brilliant innovation.

Different strokes I guess... Really wish there were just different games available for both extremes.

bobbles
10-05-2008, 16:52
I am glad that you accept that. Does this mean that I won't be "flogged, flayed, then dragged round back and shot"? ;)

Just beacuse it is my least favourite doesn't mean that I don't think it was the most important - because I do.

Put simply no(ie you will still be flogged, flayed then shot) its just your opinion will be recognised will its happening

leonmallett
10-05-2008, 16:56
I'm guessing then that you prefer having practically every decision in the game other than which direction to move in already made for you by the designers?

:rolleyes:

No, and don't assume that you know what I want, please. I could equally argue that anyone who prefers such a mess of a game is little more than a poseur who wants to be seen to be 'cool' because they have to fill in so many of the gaps. Now would that be a fair assumption? Any more or less so than your own?

What I do want is to have a reasonably mechanically consistent game, set in an internally consistent background, that I find fun to play and read about. RT didn't really do that to the same extent of subsequent editions.

Plastic Rat
10-05-2008, 17:02
:rolleyes:

No, and don't assume that you know what I want, please. I could equally argue that anyone who prefers such a mess of a game is little more than a poseur who wants to be seen to be 'cool' because they have to fill in so many of the gaps. Now would that be a fair assumption? Any more or less so than your own?

What I do want is to have a reasonably mechanically consistent game, set in an internally consistent background, that I find fun to play and read about. RT didn't really do that to the same extent of subsequent editions.

Good point. I guess I was a tad harsh in that regard. I have to say that I find the fluff has only improved since 1st edition, and the jump from 1st ed to 2nd ed showed me the greatest improvement in the fluff.

My favourite ruleset still remains 2nd edition so I guess I'm more than a little biased.

leonmallett
10-05-2008, 17:06
Good point. I guess I was a tad harsh in that regard. I have to say that I find the fluff has only improved since 1st edition, and the jump from 1st ed to 2nd ed showed me the greatest improvement in the fluff.

My favourite ruleset still remains 2nd edition so I guess I'm more than a little biased.

No worries. :)

Really there ought to be some kind of two part poll: one asking which the least faourite is with voters then voting as to which their favourite is. Otherwise the results of this one don't indicate which is the most popular.

I enjoyed 2nd at the time, but can't honestly say I found games as much fun as I do with 4th. It is horses for courses. :)

TzeentchForPresident
10-05-2008, 17:12
2nd edition. Because of one rule.. Overwatch! :mad:

bobbles
10-05-2008, 17:14
2nd edition. Because of one rule.. Overwatch! :mad:
What do you have against over watch

Gerrok
10-05-2008, 17:55
I didn't have a chance to play RT, but 2nd was by far the worst edition I have played. There seemed to be no actual balance, and cost of various troops seemed to be created using the "dart board" method.

I like the 3rd and 4th editions because it refocused the game from "here are my characters who are going to kill your army" to "here's my army, led by a character". Plus it no longer takes 4 hours to play a 1500 point game, and you don't stop to play Magic: The Gathering every turn during the Psychic phase.

DrDoom
10-05-2008, 18:08
3rd. Many of my firends stopped playing because of the huge change in the game. In many ways the end 2nd edition was the death of 40k and 3rd was a brand new game with the 40k name. course the same was also true between 1st and 2nd. Also the 3rd Edition Chaos Codex (the first one) was horrible.

colmarekblack
10-05-2008, 18:26
Probably the 4th ed rules tbh. Not all of it was bad (rapidfire and better cover saves were an improvement) but the area terrain rules are a pain in the backside it means my Guard can't bring any shooting to bear against a juicy target most of the time.

Bloodknight
10-05-2008, 19:03
Funny, I thought the area terrain rules made the game more interesting for my Guard ^^. Also, they speed the game up no end.

VenrableOne
10-05-2008, 19:14
The worst thing to ever happen to the game was 3rd. Balance and tactics suffered so the game could be sped up. (This not the thread to get into why but I will cite AP and the removal of options like running as two examples.)

I'll admit there were problems with 2nd which brings a comment I once heard to mind. "They needed a scalpel to fix 2nd and they used a nuke, they need a nuke to fix 3rd but are going to use a scalpel."

The_Outsider
10-05-2008, 19:23
2nd edition was horrendous and i'm damn glad such an abomination no longer exists.

3rd ed may of been a downgrade as far as abilities and wargear go but by god did it clear up a cluster**** of a ruleset.

Bloodknight
10-05-2008, 19:30
2nd ed. was balanced squat all, really. Eldar and Tyranids come to mind especially.
Space Marines including DA and BA were a bit weak.

The IG was good, quite a powerful list.

Chaos was, well, variable.

Space Wolves could build stupid Terminators until it got errata'd.

Orks were pretty awful. Random and fun to play against, but awful and prone to losing a lot unless you went overboard with pulsa rokkits. They were described as liking to get stuck in, but the Warriors were not well suited for it with almost no armour and a weak WS stat (like Guardsmen), in a system where every point of difference mattered. They were a shooty army with too much random stuff to be really goood at shooting.
Sisters had some good units, but were only really good allied to IG.

Eldar had some stupidly strong units (An 11" long flamer template that autokilled you if you did not pass an I test, which they conveniently modified by -2, and an armour save, that also was modified by -2? 5 times in one shooting phase in a unit of 5 plus the exarch who could do this twice alone? Look no further than Warp Spiders. For the record, that means they killed guardsmen basically on 2+ since they could only dodge the wound on a 1, Orks also only on a 1, although they were technically at 0. Even SM dodged that only on a 2 or less and had a 5+ AS against it. Very fun to play against...).

Tyranids messed your army up before the game, were fast enough to inflict to-hit modifiers on the opponent, destroyed enemy field saves and were pretty much unkillable in close combat except the gaunts thanks to their really high WS stats and the way the CC system worked. Also, they usually got the charge since a Tyranid unit could charge at least 4" farther than a human unit. The large creatures like Carnifexes could also be built semi-indestructible (I mean, a 3+ on 2D6 armour with a 4+ ward save that raised the strength of the carnifex and destroyed enemy invulnerable saves...).

I must say that I had really good times in 2nd edition and the game was more narrative than today, especially when wacky stuff happened like once, when an Ork buggy went out of control after my Ratlings had shot the crew, and crashed into the mission objective, destroying it in the explosion.
But balanced it was not at all.

Royal Tiger
10-05-2008, 19:33
4th edition, I was introduced to 40k with 3rd and it was good, with 3.5 being perfect, but as soon as 4th came along it basically became a game of who can take more rending than anyone else, hard thought tactics were swapped in favor of the no thought assault cannon, and the game went downhill very fast.

leonmallett
10-05-2008, 19:50
4th edition, I was introduced to 40k with 3rd and it was good, with 3.5 being perfect, but as soon as 4th came along it basically became a game of who can take more rending than anyone else, hard thought tactics were swapped in favor of the no thought assault cannon, and the game went downhill very fast.


3.5?

No such thing. There was 3rd. And then 3rd with Trial Assault Rules and vehicle revisions, but no official 3.5.

lanrak
10-05-2008, 19:54
2nd ed was a enthusiasm overloaded development.
The devs got a bit carried away, IMO.:D
But the basic game could have been developed into a cleaner more efficient version while keeping the feel of 2nd ed.
(Chuck away the WH based rule set and use something more apropriate.)

Light pruning and reshaping onto a different framework was required.

What GW did was chop right back to the stump, and restrict growth in a unecissary way!

Royal Tiger
10-05-2008, 19:55
3.5?

No such thing. There was 3rd. And then 3rd with Trial Assault Rules and vehicle revisions, but no official 3.5.
that basically is what is known as 3.5, its unofficial official designation for it, it was basically the good bits from 3rd, combined with the good bits from 4th

sigur
10-05-2008, 20:22
that basically is what is known as 3.5, its unofficial official designation for it, it was basically the good bits from 3rd, combined with the good bits from 4th

That's the funny thing about this GW core games thing: There are very different gaming traits, terms and expressions depending on the gaming group. Luckily, the weird computer program designations never really made it to become really widely-used terms on warseer (can't speak for your gaming group there).

Anyhoo, lanrak has a point. But I think that the 2nd edition ruleset itself was very solid, it was the bunch of codices which were released in a short period of time that made the game unbalanced. I think it would be interesting to hear how 2nd edition works if you use only the armylists and units from Codex Army Lists and equipment from Wargear and the wargear cards you got with the boxed set.

MegaPope
10-05-2008, 20:51
3rd. The first time I saw the rulebook and the (pamphlet) codicies, my jaw dropped and I thought, 'this beautiful game...what have they DONE to it?'

As well as pruning everything right back to the stump (and then blitzing said stump with Agent Orange for good measure) this was also the first edition of the game designed specifically for tournaments, thus it played the biggest role in instilling the staid, 1500-points minded, officialdom-obsessed tounament mindset in gaming clubs across the world where it had no business being in the first place.

To add insult to injury, it was no better balanced in many ways than 2ed had been. CC became even worse for non-specialised units (the horrible aberration of the Tyranids and Eldar apart, 2ed's CC wasn't all that bad), especially since CC units could shoot before assaulting. The designers realised that the best way to get a game to end quickly was by making close combat uber-deadly, hence assaulters gained a plethora of move-boosting rules and extra-lethal attacks (and they wonder why Fantasy took such hit - why play mock-medieval close range slaughterfests when you can do it in 40K with far less thought?)

For everyone else (armour, gun-troops) the game became far more static than it had ever been before. Herohammer in the classic sense (characters aceing whole units on their own in one turn) also reared its ugly head in 40K for the first time in 3ed. Everything was sacrificed in the name of fast gameplay, including common sense, flexibility and subtlety.

By the looks of 5th, it seems GW is trying to recreate at least some of what they smashed in the name of trying to create a cash-cow tournament scene back in 1998.

Aaron Platt
10-05-2008, 21:12
3rd Edition for me, simply because of the drastic change from 2nd and not for the better in my opinion. (That is looking at the base ruleset which was solid and just needed some tweaking, and not how each army was balanced, there was a lot of nonsense admittedly in 2nd). On the person who mentioned overwatch, I can see why though, did cause some games to become a bit of a stand off. However many years it has been I still dislike the armour/AP rules as well as the vehicle charts.

Worse still is since then things didn't really improve drastically balance wise which looked to hold some promise. The game seemed to have a few "visions" pulling it in different directions (following the ever evolving Rending rule being a good example, what a mess), thankfully 5th seems to be bringing things into line judging by recent releases.

Archangel_Ruined
10-05-2008, 21:51
Rogue trader was a mess, you could roll your marines to have shruiken weapons, the zoats were all over the shop, eldar were just pirates, the imperial guard whizzed around on jetbikes and there were dinosaurs. It was, fun, don't get me wrong, but it was a mess. 2nd Ed was very detailed but just didn't work for large scale games. 3rd was a massive leap but had its failings, and 4th was just house keeping to fix some of those issues. I'd say the only problem with 4th is codex creep, the rules themselves are alright, morale could be improved upon and that would fix many other issues like tank shocking. Still, I can't say I have a least favourite, they've all been good in their own ways and they've all had their failings in others. You just roll with the punches and take the good, at the end of the day the guys who write the rules enjoy playing as much as we do so it all balances out in the end if you keep fun in mind. Tournament wise none of the editions work too well, they're let down by their own flaws or the codeces that accompany them.

sigur
10-05-2008, 21:55
Tournament wise none of the editions work too well, ...

Oh so true. Should show us once again that if you're out for competetive tournaments, 40k or WHFB isn't for you.

lanrak
10-05-2008, 22:51
Sigur.
Surley 40k is all about getting the cheesiest list possible and pwning every one else to massage you ego.:eek:
'Ass cannon spam o doom 4r hte winn!!!':rolleyes:

Games Workshop used to make games with a strong narrative drive.
The games were all about creating stories with your friends.
Every game I played in 2nd ed that I can remember was a huge amount of fun.
I can not remember who scored how many points , who 'won ' the battles.But that seemed FAR less important to us back then...:D

Dr Morbius
10-05-2008, 22:54
3rd, no question about that. True you had to be much more careful with the units you brought to battle in order for both side to enjoy the game, but 1st and 2nd gave you so much more possibilities during your turn that it was much more worthwhile to play.

I understand that these rulesets are not suitable for large battles, but this is something I never wanted from 40k. I often wonder where this desire to play with as much miniatures as possible came from. Was it the fluff?

Bigbot
10-05-2008, 23:03
3rd for me too. I love 4th ed despite it's several issues, and 2nd ed was colourful, fun and, despite being hidiously unbalanced, a good rule set in itself.

3rd, streamlined everything, got a lot of stuff wrong (Lack of running and a almost disapearence of psychics come immeadiately to mind) but worst of all, everything became generic. I always remember the 3rd edition codexes for being short, bland and generally crap before being improved again with the 3.5 codexes (Chaos come to mind here. Yes it could be cheesy but it built very characterful armies and was packed with fluff).

The_Outsider
10-05-2008, 23:03
Was it the fluff?

I'm guessing the second GW starting describing the HH in detail (especially the siege of the palace) people wanted to recreate such huge battles.

IMO its for the better - 40k's fluuf (as a whole) doesn't feel right as a skirmish game with such a huge scope of possibilites - Inquisitor covers the skirmish aspect rather well (as does necromunda).

Amornar
10-05-2008, 23:21
Im going to go out on a limb and say 5th will be

Kriegsherr
10-05-2008, 23:42
1st was before I was into wargames... but from I've read of the rules of 1st, it was like 2nd ed on drugs. More madness, more strange but somehow hilarious rules, and somehow a lot of creativity

2nd ed was madness... but somehow funny. It was like watching one of the movies with typical british humour... you never knew if they were dead serious with the rules or background or had a good laugh while writing it. All in all, as long as the armies weren't to big, the players were sane persons not out for WAAC and the time wasn't short, playing it was a blast.

3rd was a joke... a bad one at that. While 2nd did suffer from some not so well tought out rules, to many involved dice-rolls and some concepts that slowed down the game, 3rd was not only superstreamlined, but completly broken.
Even though games could also get quite unfair in 2nd if one of the players started abusing loopholes, 3rd was just laughable... I remember the days when jump-pack troops could get 3 times the speed of a normal vehicle and cover the whole table in one turn by jumping, attacking and overruning... it was insane. Back then one of my regular IG opponents got beaten by jumppack marines so often he regarded them as broken as the lash is regarded as today.
He himself later annoyed the other players with rhino-rush SW, which also was a quite fire-and-forget tactic back in 3rd ed.

4th ed was my favorite edition so far... everything feels somehow balanced, and while I still miss the details of 2nd edition, and some loopholes still exist (MC come to mind), all in all its the most balanced and tactically challenging edition so far.



IMO its for the better - 40k's fluuf (as a whole) doesn't feel right as a skirmish game with such a huge scope of possibilites - Inquisitor covers the skirmish aspect rather well (as does necromunda).

Though its really sad this aspect of the 40k universe gets so neglected... Inq, Necromunda and Epic would really deserve a little bit more support from GW, even if its only an annual update of rules with a single wave of new minis...

And 40k really isn't fit for Apocalyptic battles, while playing Apocalypse is fun (big templates and explosions, who wouldn't enjoy that ;) ), the tactical element gets almost completly thrown out of the window.
Epic is the better game when it comes to tactics and large-scale battles... altough I have to say, 40k sized warmachines are rather sexy...

Drogmir
11-05-2008, 00:45
Eh 3rd was pretty bad but it had those army lists integrated into the main book. But I do feel 4th edition in no way handles Apocalypse battles very well.

Freakiq
11-05-2008, 01:04
Eh 3rd was pretty bad but it had those army lists integrated into the main book. But I do feel 4th edition in no way handles Apocalypse battles very well.

4th edition is the only one that handles Apocalypse battles. ;)

nedsta
11-05-2008, 02:09
3rd was a major shock to me, while it did speed up the game in general it took away a fair few things from 2nd ed that i loved e.g overwatch,but to be fair it did away with having to remember modifers and the sometimes complicated AP rolls that could come up e.g chainfist against a vehicle that moved 11" 2D20+D4+D6+10 or it was something like that anyway,while i think that each version has good and bad points i personally dont think there is a definate "bad" version of 40k,

1st ed was complicated and required a lot of imagination but was seriously fun,and 4th ed is a lot easier to get into then any version i have ever played,my first 4th ed games were at the apocalypse launch after 7-8 years of inactivity on the gaming front,i feel that people can play any version of 40k as long as they are prepared to try something new without complaining,now some people wont agree with me here but all i can say is if you dont like a certain version then dont play it :D

Skyth
11-05-2008, 02:28
Funny how you don't have 5th on there...Which will be the least fun version so far.

Flame Boy
11-05-2008, 02:33
I vote 3rd edition for many, many reasons.

1)Identikit assault marines and the "close combat weapon" menace, that I've grudgingly learned to accept.

2)Eldar Guardians becoming a horde army of submachinegun-wielding fools

3)Tanks becoming bunkers that can't split their fire or move in any useful manner

4)The AP system in general

5)Pamphlet Codices

6)Psychic powers becoming incredibly boring

7)Dark Eldar actually being rather underwhelming after getting excited about them

8)The ludicrous Choppa rule

9)Skilled assault combatants hit better, but don't avoid attacks well

10)Cover saves or armour... or dive behind that rock and you become naked!

I could probably keep going for some time, but a lot of them would undermine 4th edition, which I personally consider the best tradeoff between playability and interesting rules. It seems to have fixed a few of 3rd edition's more irritating flaws, and I've learned to live with the rest. I still think the AP/to hit system is pants, though. :p

Ravenheart
11-05-2008, 02:40
Funny how you don't have 5th on there...Which will be the least fun version so far.

So ... you have the book? Cool!

Mind sharing some infos; what's the 5th like?


:rolleyes:


@topic: The 3rd edition was very flawed and unispiered, as were it's codices.

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 02:53
Mind sharing some infos; what's the 5th like?

4th edition?

Plastic Rat
11-05-2008, 02:59
Funny how you don't have 5th on there...Which will be the least fun version so far.

Seriously man, it's posts like this that make me realize why the designers don't bother to take anything seriously that's said on forums. Stuff like this invalidates all the good points that are made on here about the game.

Nobody HAS 5th edition yet. As much as I don't like the current direction of the game, I still don't believe I can start slamming the next edition before anyone has even seen the book.

I mean what, you're basing your assumption at best on a leaked version which is a couple of years old and may in fact have been a setup? For all we know, they could have tossed out everything we have now and made a jump as big as the jump from 2nd to 3rd edition was.

By all means have your say AFTER you actually have something to base your opinion on, just not before.

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 03:12
For all we know, they could have tossed out everything we have now and made a jump as big as the jump from 2nd to 3rd edition was.

That would be really damn awesome of them. :D

LordCypher
11-05-2008, 04:44
2nd ed. all the way :P 3rd seemed to address things that players were already doing to make 2nd easier to play. Plus the 2nd ed. box set came with everything you needed to play so it felt like an actual game if you get my meaning.

Durath
11-05-2008, 05:47
Yeah, definitely 3rd ed. was the worst imho too.

Admittedly, 2nd edition characters were out of control, but they swung the balance completely to the other end of the spectrum and kinda over-nerfed them, and made transports WAY too much of a requirement.

And I completely agree with Trogdor that the sudden "your can't use your 2nd edition codex anymore" stand GW took left the playerbase with a really bad taste in its mouth. I actually came close to selling my army about a year after it came out on this alone.

It wasn't until I heard they were working on fixing transports that I got back into it. And I agree to a point that with the transport fix, the trial assault rules and experimental vehicle rules, 3rd edition wasn't a bad game to play. But it really wasn't "3rd" edition anymore. More like, "40k, edition 3.5 "

So far 4th edition has been great. I just wish they would update Necrons, DE, and IG before they released the next edition. Ah well.

ankara halla
11-05-2008, 06:00
So far, 3rd edition has been the worst IMO. As had allready been said a lot better than I ever could, GW used a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to fix 2nd ed... or threw the baby out with the bathwater, or in general messed up a perfectly good game system that had about three major faults (internally, codixes needed fixing... just like they do today) which even weren't that major compared to the bunch of clusterhumps that the 3rd ed introduced.

4th ed. fixed them somewhat, but still feels like a patch to an internally flawed system. (seriously, when you need more than 30 special rules to overlap the core rules you've got a bad, bad system to work on...) Having said that, I'm not saying that the 3rd ed. core couldn't work, it just needs lots and lots and lots and lost of work. And this is where I see GW's folly, 2nd ed. was pretty damn good and solid. It had a lot of good concepts behind it, a number of bad ones too for sure, but at it's most basic level it provided a gaming experience that the 3rd ed core could never provide.

Pink Horror
11-05-2008, 06:30
I don't like this 5th edition trend, and I'm referring to the published codices, not the leak, of having out immunity to instant death to every nasty character and monster, either through toughness or eternal warrior. Super characters that don't even have to fear a one shot death, and that come with good armour and invulnerable saves, are backtracking to some of the problems that 3rd edition fixed.


By all means have your say AFTER you actually have something to base your opinion on, just not before.

Eldar Codex.
Chaos Codex.
Ork Codex.
Daemon Codex.

Plastic Rat
11-05-2008, 06:55
Eldar Codex.
Chaos Codex.
Ork Codex.
Daemon Codex.

Well yes, if we're talking about the trend set by the codexes, I can agree with you there. In my defense, Skyth did NOT mention the trend set by the codexes, and as far as I understood, this thread was referring to editions of the core rulebook.

If the codexes are any indication of 5th ed, it will be even more dumbed down and simplified than it currently is.

Of course they could surprise us all and leave the codexes fairly simple and make the actual gameplay very tactical and deep.

spaint2k
11-05-2008, 11:12
I didn't have a chance to play RT, but 2nd was by far the worst edition I have played. There seemed to be no actual balance, and cost of various troops seemed to be created using the "dart board" method.

In all fairness, the points values for 2nd ed were pretty formulaic (which made it easy to make your own rules for vehicles and models). However, by the same token, flat points costs for weaponry regardless of race and whehter it was carried by infantry or mounted on a vehicle, simply didn't make a lot of sense, although in some ways I find it more acceptable than the current kind of situation where some unit choices simply aren't considered by many to be good value for the points compared with others (lootas vs. burnas springs to mind).



To add insult to injury, it was no better balanced in many ways than 2ed had been. CC became even worse for non-specialised units (the horrible aberration of the Tyranids and Eldar apart, 2ed's CC wasn't all that bad), especially since CC units could shoot before assaulting. The designers realised that the best way to get a game to end quickly was by making close combat uber-deadly, hence assaulters gained a plethora of move-boosting rules and extra-lethal attacks (and they wonder why Fantasy took such hit - why play mock-medieval close range slaughterfests when you can do it in 40K with far less thought?)


Quoted for truth.

FWIW, I really liked the imagery of 3rd ed. I could even cope with the reduced codexes. But the utter bloodbath that CC became really spoiled the game for me. My second ed ork army became unstoppable, and even with a BS of only 2 they still did enormous damage against my marine and chaos opponents.



Admittedly, 2nd edition characters were out of control <SNIP>


I've got to mildly disagree with this. They were hard to kill in CC, but didn't actually kill very much themselves. They were also vulnerable to massed firepower. In 3rd and 4th ed, characters have the ability to wipe out entire units in CC.



2nd ed. was pretty damn good and solid. It had a lot of good concepts behind it, a number of bad ones too for sure, but at it's most basic level it provided a gaming experience that the 3rd ed core could never provide.

Couldn't agree more.



Of course they could surprise us all and leave the codexes fairly simple and make the actual gameplay very tactical and deep.

Riiight...

My choice was for 4th edition as least favourite, while 2nd is my favourite.

From my point of view, the differences between 3rd and 4th are mostly cosmetic and "tweaks", while the fundamental ruleset remains the same (even down to the old 3rd ed codices still being playable under 4th).

Why 4th loses to 3rd in my book, is the lack of variety. I mean sure, if your gaming group is an enlightened bunch, you can use any 3rd ed codex or army list and get to play your LatD, Kroot Mercenary, or Iron Hands force. But if you're not so blessed, you lose out. There must be 30 or 40 different armylists out there for 3rd edition and I have always felt that this variety was 3rd ed's strongest point.

Steve

the1stpip
11-05-2008, 11:37
I would have to say 3rd (and I did).

2nd ed, for all its faults, was fun. As long as you weren't a WAAC player, it was a blast.

3rd ed was a good idea, but coming after 2nd, it didn't do it for me, but 4th was a vast improvement, and while I am wary of 5th, I won't judge it until I have devoured the rulebook (after eading it first).

Kriegsherr
11-05-2008, 11:44
Funny how you don't have 5th on there...Which will be the least fun version so far.

What makes you so sure? How many games of the 5th edition final rules from the rulebook have you already played?

Sleazy
11-05-2008, 18:36
having played from RT, I hated 2nd, over complicated rules and cartoon minis, everything painted red?

It was like they decided to go for the kiddy market with the minis but made the rules incomprehensible to their market. I actually stopped playing mid 2nd.

3rd was a great relief.

SockMonkey
11-05-2008, 18:38
Wow alot of love for RT/2nd here... I too started back in the day.. but dont seem to have my rose coloured glasses anywhere. RT/2nd were both HORRIFIC rules sets. The rules were complete *****, said it there. The feel and flavor were top of the heap by far. If you want in depth rules play necro or Inq. They made 40K streamlined and fast.. its a game of armies. you want to be able to play an army and it not take all weekend to finish the game couldnt do that in 2nd and if you got 3 turns in RT you were doing well... and then you only have 10 marines, 5 terminators and a pred in 2000 points... (disclamer points may be off...)

People who hate second, third, fourth and fifth... general "classic car syndrome" are free to continue to play the editions they enjoy the most. I just wonder who has actually played a game of RT or second in the past 10 years... I think we all remember it rather more fondly than it was.

My opinion nothing more... and I do know what they say about opinions.

Sleazy
11-05-2008, 18:43
while RT was broken Sockmonkey thats really because it was never written as a " game of armies", it was a RPG skirmish at heart that through whatever reason became accepted as a mass battle sci fi set.

For all its faults its still the one I remember most fondly though admittedly a lot of that may be down to nostalgia.

MegaPope
11-05-2008, 18:46
A couple of things to bear in mind here for people who seem to be unsure of certain things:

1) Rogue Trader required a minimum THREE people to play a game, not two - 2+ players and an impartial GM to handle neutral stuff (wild monsters etc) and rules decisions. At the time, GW was aiming at the RPG market with its new game, while WFB took care of the massed battle side of things - 40K was in effect an outgrowth of WFB (which at the time also really needed three participants to be at its best) and many of the rules were interchangeable.
It was considered rather odd practice to design one's own army list in RT...or even to have an army list. These things were mostly handled by the GM. RT as about role-play rather than massed battles. The closest thing you get to it these days is Inquisitor - indeed, the RT book and its later sub-volumes are my group's primary sourcebook for Inquisitor campaigns.

2)The notion that 2ed couldn't handle big games is IMO untrue. Most of the games I played came in at over 3000 points, and even back then, that was a sizeable force (2000 or so being the norm). As with everything else, larger games introduced a new economy of scale into the gameplay - characters became even less significant, as did individually powerful weapons and equipment.
It all depends what you want out of the game - personally, I'd sooner have one larger, absorbing game lasting the best part of a day, than 2-3 two-hour killathon-lites, but different strokes for different folks.

3)Characters being more dangerous in 2ed than now: maybe this was true prior to just about every army getting some sort of means to ignore ID on characters, but it ain't now (even the Guard get the Medallion Crimson). 2ed characters were potent, and often hard to damage, but if you got past their defences, that was it (unless they were 'Nids - a thousand curses on the army that finally broke the back of 2ed!:mad:);))

Take Abbadon the Despoiler as a example - these days, you have to hit and wound him a minimum of four times to kill him. With a 2+ save, he's going to shrug off most weaponry, leaving you having to use anti-tank artillery to be sure, and even then he's got an Invulnerable Save. Take him in assault, and unless your troops have very high I, he's probably going to wipe out everyone in his killzone and make the unit flee, or at least survive another turn.

Back in 2ed, Abby had a 2+ Save on 2D6, and a 4+ Unmodifiable, which he could take as well - sounds very impressive, huh? Well, it was, until that one lascannon blast got through both, which it virtually always would in the end - S9...2 to wound...and then 2D6 Wounds from the hit. He had 4 wounds, average roll on 2D6 is 7. Laugh that one off, big man.
In close combat, he probably would off a whole squad that attacked him...until you got to the powerfist armed squad leader, who by then would be rolling something like 8 attack dice at WS9, and that powerfist would slam D6 wounds onto Abby each time it got through.

To reiterate: 2ed characters were mostly designed for killing the other side's characters. Furthermore, one of the reasons that special characters were used so often was that, at the time, there were not really any decent generic commander figures.

Apart from Tyranids...but 2ed Tyranids were evil and nasty and stank of rotten brie. Before anyone praises Mr Chambers too highly, remember the 2ed 'Nid Codex, and temper your ardour;).

Im not saying1
11-05-2008, 18:56
I keep hearing about the "overwatch" rule. As it is now severly outdated im assuming its ok to ask about what the rule did?

Bloodknight
11-05-2008, 19:01
I guess so. Overwatch allowed a unit that did not move or shoot to go into overwatch and shoot in the enemy movement phase at enemy units at -1 BS. Good with Marines, not so good with guardsmen.

About the characters: I agree. They were really hard, but did not kill much. in the first turn after charging you were lucky to kill more than 2 guys since you could only kill models in BTB, and even Aby had a 25mm base back then, with 40mm square bases being the biggest around. There were not as many models on the table, so really using the 2" formation was easy, and characters could seldom charge more than one guy. After that they would gang up, getting huge boni for each fighting guy, and kill the character at some point. There were not a lot of chars who could stand fighting a mob of Orks alone, the most notable being the Eversor assassin, who got the same boni as the outnumbering guys for being outnumbered, and Marneus Calgar, who did not allow the outnumber bonus (and at WS8, most normal models had no chance of hitting him ever). Calgar was laughably easy to kill with shooting though, in his power armour (no termi option) and with heavy bolters dealing D4 wounds (he had 4) and up to 6 hits per shot.

Add to that that you could shoot into CC and most characters died to some well-placed heavy bolter - or assault cannon (S8, D10 wounds) fire if they were fighting IG and had charged a unit. Since the Guardsmen could not kill the guy in combat, you just sacrificed them by blasting into CC because some of the hits would strike the character.

Niibl
11-05-2008, 19:39
3rd edition.
I must admit that at first I was some kind of impressed and thought it to be quite a bold and not necessarily a bad way to handle things.
Although I loved 2nd edition I had some problems with it: as a Fantasy player I hated the 2nd ed. close combat procedure and I still do today.
I am still not sure why we needed armour values for vehicles either but somehow that change from RT didn't hurt that much.

When 3rd edition returned to a more "normal" way to do things I was actually glad.(Additionaly, I had been the rules monkey as I had all the WDs and rulebooks so I appreciated to just have one book:D)
On paper , allthough very streamlined, the mechanics didn't look that bad and the difficult ground rules seemed a quite clever solution...

In the end it was too simplyfied for my taste (I still miss frag grenades) . The game simply wasn't warhammer anymore.(AVs?unmodifies breaktests?:wtf:)-then Squats were finally killed off, codex books got flyer format etc.
Well, due lack of opponents and incoming RL I didn't play it that often, so I was not actually confronted by the rules problems.
4th edition just passed me by. I just kept in touch by buying the books and reading the bitching/whining threads about all the problems.
Now 5th edition got me interested again.

keatsmeister
11-05-2008, 21:14
3rd edition just felt so half finished. By the time some of the major problems were dealt with, lo and behold 4th edition had arrived :rolleyes:

grumpy old gamer
11-05-2008, 21:25
mmm-well I am old and now very grumpy.
RT started it all off - and yes you had to use a bit of brain but it was by far the most inclusive set of rules we've had. Also you got some *trying to be young again* wicked..no well then, very good bits of kit. You also had zoats, squats and Marines who liked to sit in a bar and drink, with helmets on.
As a source book it was great. There were mutant tables, well to be fair there were tables for everything but it was still fun. And that was it, no matter what anyone says at heart it was - simple basic fun. Yes things could have been tweeked and improved but not going as far as they have done and dumb things down to a level where a ***** on heroin can play a half decent game.
The one thing that has got better is model quality in both plastic and metal. Nowadays they are truely beautifull works of art in most cases.
Oh and the Die have got harder to see, but that might be my issue not yours...

Archangel_Ruined
11-05-2008, 21:47
You couldn't shoot into CC, that's always been a no no. Overwatch was taken away as it was too close to reactive fire, and that doesn't work in a strictly turn based game. You'd just move your army into cover sat in the fire lines of the table, declare overwatch and wait for your opponent to move into view. It was a bit broken, and fairly dull if abused. None of the 40k games, from rogue trader to the leaked 5th rules are bad to play, they just differ in their play style, from quasi-rpg to streamlined exercises in probability.

Supremearchmarshal
11-05-2008, 22:31
3rd edition. I have nothing to say about it that hasn't already been said by the posters before me. The 4th is better balanced, but still suffers from the major flaws of the 3rd, such as a complete lack of reaction mechanics, lots of special rules and a very poor morale system.

The first two editions were IMO also rather poor rulesets. However, they offered more customisation, encouraged narrative elements and had lots of fun, wacky weapons and wargear. Oh, and they had "to hit" modifiers.

Bloodknight
11-05-2008, 22:37
@Archangel_Ruined:
Actually you could shoot into CC in 2nd ed.: page 35, 2nd edition rulebook:

"Normally troops do not shoot at models engaged in hand-to-hand combat because it would be very easy to hit the wrong target! However a player wishing to take the chance may shoot. Work out hits as normal and randomly allocate any successful hits between models from both sides."

Colonel_Kreitz
11-05-2008, 23:22
3rd Edition is the ONLY version of any game I have played where I have genuinely felt that the game was pretty much decided once army lists were written and the role for first turn was decided...

MadJackMcJack
11-05-2008, 23:45
2nd. Never played 1st or 3rd, and 4th is far more streamlined (and therefore can be played in a reasonable amount of time) then 2nd.

Mouldsta
11-05-2008, 23:58
See in a way, all of them, and here's why;

RT - rules wise this was a nightmare, there was no way to get a game in without some large amount of arguement/confusion as to how something worked/what was suppossed to be going on. overly complicated was the best way to sum up RT. Add in patchy background and you have a game that's fondly remembered, as long as you forget about the bad bits. Much like a commadore 64.

2nd edition - again, fondly remembered with all those cool things like shokk attack gunz, virus bombs, wargear cards etc. It was definately the craziest version of 40K, and will always have a special place in my heart. Unfortunately there were some serious downsides - somethings like combat took far too long, and others were just overly complicated with excessive detail that didn't really add anything to the game. There was also some horribly broken things in that version - if your game didn't last 2 days then it lasted 2 minutes as the first virus grenade thrown wiped out your entire army on the first turn. Anyone who has watched a game where both opponents decided to go on overwatch will remember how boring it could be. As a personal note, I like an army to be, well, an army. Not every special character in that army turn up to every fight. A typical army in 2nd was something along the lines of;
"we 5 scouts are going on a routine patrol"
"ok, well I, logan grimnar and my mates ragnar blackmane and Njal stormcaller will come with you"

3rd - Third managaed to lose the clunky mechanics of 2nd, but it lost a lot of the fun stuff as well. While having the gritty background was cool and all, it wasn't quite the same as having the orks from 2nd ed. A lot of stuff in 3rd was too bare bones - DE/Orks spring to mind. It was far more playable, but there was definately stuff wrong with it.

4th - I have to actively try to remember the differences between 3rd and 4th, they're rather minor in my opinion. Some of the issues from 3rd were addressed, but others weren't so much (ld still doesn't play much role). There's also a bit of a trend towards special rules being "you have universal rule #3" - I like a special rule to be special, not just "fleet, rending".

I think all told, 2nd was my favourite, and has my fondest memories, but 4th would probably be what I wanted to play if anyone offered me a game. I'm hoping 5th can give something in between.

spaint2k
12-05-2008, 06:48
I just wonder who has actually played a game of RT or second in the past 10 years... I think we all remember it rather more fondly than it was.


I played 2nd ed. two weeks ago, and I'll be playing it again this month.

:)

Steve

simonr1978
12-05-2008, 10:06
Herohammer in the classic sense (characters aceing whole units on their own in one turn) also reared its ugly head in 40K for the first time in 3ed.

I'd say "Herohammer" was a much bigger factor in 40K in the Rogue Trader and 2nd edition eras. It was pretty easy to make many characters almost unkillable and just let them chew through whatever you wanted with impunity. With few exceptions (Abaddon in 2nd edition springs to mind) characters as a whole have got progressively toned down through the editions.


1) Rogue Trader required a minimum THREE people to play a game, not two - 2+ players and an impartial GM to handle neutral stuff (wild monsters etc) and rules decisions.

.............

It was considered rather odd practice to design one's own army list in RT...or even to have an army list. These things were mostly handled by the GM. RT as about role-play rather than massed battles. The closest thing you get to it these days is Inquisitor - indeed, the RT book and its later sub-volumes are my group's primary sourcebook for Inquisitor campaigns.

Sorry but I disgree, whilst a GM was recommended it wasn't a requirement and I can't honestly recall a game of RT where we actually used a GM. Rogue Trader required a minimum of two people.

Equally once Army lists began to appear such as in the Compendium, Compilation, etc it was pretty usual to have army lists certainly in any of the gaming groups I played in at the time it wouldn't have gone down too well at all to have just put down a force on the table with no regard to the army list or points considerations.

Bloodknight
12-05-2008, 11:05
I'd say herohammer was at its greatest in the last chaos codex. 2nd edition characters could due to the combat system not chew through more than a unit during the course of a game because there was no killzone. You could only kill what was in BTB.
One has to remember that 2nd ed games were 4 turn affairs, not 6 turn as now, ie there was not much time for killing.

Epicenter
12-05-2008, 11:17
2nd for me.

2nd was what made me quit paying attention to 40k for a long, long time. While I played a tiny bit in 3rd, I really only seriously got back into 40k with 4th.

I know a lot of you believe that 2nd was great, and 2nd certainly was the introduction and reimaging of a lot of 40k's core fluff, but the rules? The rules were horrible to me. It was like all the stupidity and lack of balance present in RT, except there was this veneer of it being a balanced game with its codified army lists and points costs whereas RT was a lot more "goofy" and you could pretty much do what you wanted with the implication that balance was really up to the players. Plus a lot of 2nd edition was just plain absurd to me - yeah, while a lot of people really liked that absurdity of turrets from destroyed tanks bouncing around the battlefield and destroying half both sides' armies, and the gigantic footprint-shaped weirdboy templates...ugh. 2nd literally groaned under an Administratum's worth of weight of special rules, exceptions, and special rules on top of those. Then there was a pointlessness of the four turn games. A wargame where you can't maneuver isn't a really a wargame at all.

3rd was pretty bland, I'll be the first to admit that, but I think it was a very necessary step to "clean the palette" from horror that was herohammer 2nd.

EDIT: @ Bloodknight, yeah, the horror that was the 3.5e Chaos Codex was really bad (pity it was such a gorgeous book - that's honestly my biggest beef with the 4e Chaos Codex - what's with that elementary school art?), but I'll always think of 2nd edition as herohammer. In 2nd you had crap like Ragnar Blackmane running around doped up combat drugs and a vortex grenade and the Eldar Avatar that was so gaudy that if you were a Sisters of Battle player and found your opponent was an Eldar player, you simply had a conversation before even unpacking your army: "Hey, you got an Avatar in your army?" "Yeah." "Oh, well, congratulations on your victory. What do you want to do now?"

WhiteZombie
12-05-2008, 11:33
tbh, 2nd was pretty lame. it could handle large battles in a technical sense, true, but those games dragged on and on and on with even less being collectively done than in a typical games of 3rd/4th. everyone likes to poke fun at 3rd and 4th as a 'bucket of dice' game, but if you compared a large game of 2nd with a large game of 3rd/4th, youre rolling the same amount of dice, only in second youre rolling alot of them ONE BY ******* ONE.

phases just dragged on and on and on and became cluttered with markers and remembering what unit or attack is under what effect for how long, psychic powers and cheesy wargear combinations threw strategy out the window, and rpg-like special rules just made certain units absolutely ridiculous, probably only so that theyd remove alot of models so the game wouldnt take so ******* long to finish.

the underlying rules system works fine, for games like necromunda, but i remember trying to play 3000+ pt games with hordey armies like IG and nids with any decent amount of terrain and having to leave battles set up overnight so we could come back and finish them the next day, having to write down a whole lot of stupid crap so we remembered exactly what was doing what. sure, i guess it could be fun. if you were an accountant or something.

2nd ed worked best with themed patrols and scenarios at smaller points values. its rpg'ness lent itself well to some great fun narratives. but if you wanted a game with actual armies, then you were in for a long day indeed D: but as they say, each to their own ;)

Supremearchmarshal
12-05-2008, 12:06
Sorry but I disgree, whilst a GM was recommended it wasn't a requirement and I can't honestly recall a game of RT where we actually used a GM. Rogue Trader required a minimum of two people.

"To fight a Warhammer 40000 game you will need an extra person called the gamesmaster <snip> It is possible to play the game without a GM, as long as the players are willing to cooperate a little, adopt a reasonable attitude and honest in their record keeping.

-Rogue trader rulebook, p.6


Equally once Army lists began to appear such as in the Compendium, Compilation, etc it was pretty usual to have army lists certainly in any of the gaming groups I played in at the time it wouldn't have gone down too well at all to have just put down a force on the table with no regard to the army list or points considerations.

IMO these lists actually hurt the game in a way, since they were the first step towards a tournament scene for a game that wasn't meant to be played as a competitive game.

chromedog
12-05-2008, 12:21
2nd ed.

I started playing in RT ('88 or so), and while yes, there were issues with it, it wasn't the incoherent mess that people make out. It required a particular mindset (which thanks to the 40 tournament scene, was mostly killed off - NOT a good thing!) NOT to play with broken lists. It was quite possible to have a fun 2000pt game with mates in an afternoon.

2nd ed, "Herohammer" was the beginning of the end. The WAAC mentality took over, and the tourney scene became less about getting together with gamers from other clubs to play games - the main idea behind them - and ALL about winning blocks of wood.

3rd ed threw out a few of the broken bits from 2nd ed, but substituted its own. 4th ed is an improvement. 5th ed, I'll wait ad reserve judgement on. If it sucks, my mates and I will go back to playing Stargrunt II or even take up Metropolis.

bobbles
12-05-2008, 12:28
"To fight a Warhammer 40000 game you will need an extra person called the gamesmaster <snip> It is possible to play the game without a GM, as long as the players are willing to cooperate a little, adopt a reasonable attitude and honest in their record keeping.

-Rogue trader rulebook, p.6


You are agreeing with him here, just in case you did'nt get it your self.

spaint2k
12-05-2008, 12:39
I'd say "Herohammer" was a much bigger factor in 40K in the Rogue Trader and 2nd edition eras. It was pretty easy to make many characters almost unkillable and just let them chew through whatever you wanted with impunity. With few exceptions (Abaddon in 2nd edition springs to mind) characters as a whole have got progressively toned down through the editions.



I'm sorry but that's nonsense.



2nd edition characters could due to the combat system not chew through more than a unit during the course of a game because there was no killzone. You could only kill what was in BTB.
One has to remember that 2nd ed games were 4 turn affairs, not 6 turn as now, ie there was not much time for killing.

What he said.

In a recent game of 4th ed that I played, my tactical squad was attacked by an assault squad led by a chaplain. The chaplain single-handedly wiped out the entire squad - the squad he was leading didn't even need to attack me.

This simply wouldn't have been possible in 2nd ed due to the base-to-base requirement of close combat. And once you'd managed to get your super-killy guy into CC with me, why, I might just drop some template weapons into the fray to prevent you having any chance of following up into my heavy weapons skulking further back - because 2nd ed. allowed me to fire my own weapons into hopeless situations rather than sit passively waiting for my doom.

2nd ed characters were tough, but they really couldn't claw back anywhere near their own points cost like they can now.


2nd ed worked best with themed patrols and scenarios at smaller points values. its rpg'ness lent itself well to some great fun narratives. but if you wanted a game with actual armies, then you were in for a long day indeed D: but as they say, each to their own ;)

You have a point with this. 2nd ed led to some flavourful battles but you really needed to keep the points cost down, and it's always better with two people who share the same viewpoint on the game.

Unfortunately, 4th ed (for me) has become something so much LESS flavourful, that I often question why I'm playing. Regardless of the type of opponent I have in 4th, regardless of the size of the game, I simply have less fun than I do when I play 2nd ed games. And I think making the game faster doesn't necessarily make it more enjoyable.

Steve

Beriothien
12-05-2008, 13:11
It seems to me, that around 1999 there was a shift in both Fantasy and 40K away from "Hero Hammer" to "Units Matter Hammer" (not necessarily Troop or Core Matters, but you get the point).

I would not play 5th editon Fantasy - I started with 6th edition Fantasy Ravening Hordes (oh my god those Demons were harsh then....) but it got better as codexes were released.

I started 40K 3rd (dabbling) but really got into it with 4th.

These boards seem equally divided between those that like the Hero Hammer concept, and those that do not.

I just hope Jervishammer works more or less like the leaked pdf. I will keep playing (and most important PAYING GW MONEY) if it does.

spaint2k
12-05-2008, 13:32
It seems to me, that around 1999 there was a shift in both Fantasy and 40K away from "Hero Hammer" to "Units Matter Hammer" (not necessarily Troop or Core Matters, but you get the point).


It's like people don't read on these boards... Did you see the post RIGHT ABOVE yours?

How was 2nd ed herohammer? How were heroes in 2nd ed MORE powerful than 4th ed heroes? I never saw ANY heroes in 2nd ed that could rip an entire unit apart in one turn, each and every turn.

People keep tossing out the word "Herohammer" with respect to 2nd ed, but I just don't see any kind of justification for it, especially compared to things like the walking abortion of a Chaplain with litanies of hate leading a squad of Death Company with rending...

Steve

Plastic Rat
12-05-2008, 14:04
People who hate second, third, fourth and fifth... general "classic car syndrome" are free to continue to play the editions they enjoy the most. I just wonder who has actually played a game of RT or second in the past 10 years... I think we all remember it rather more fondly than it was.

My opinion nothing more... and I do know what they say about opinions.

I play it every weekend instead of 4th ed.

Guess they're right about opinions.

Supremearchmarshal
12-05-2008, 14:13
You are agreeing with him here, just in case you did'nt get it your self.

Not quite. Note that it says a GM is needed, unless the players are prepared to improvise a lot and reach agreements - which is TBH pretty much impossible unless they're good friends or very open-minded and capable of restraint. Take into consideration the rules loopholes in RT meant issues are bound to arise every game (if not every turn!). The GM wasn't 100% necessary, but it was strongly suggested that one was needed for a fair game.


How was 2nd ed herohammer? How were heroes in 2nd ed MORE powerful than 4th ed heroes? I never saw ANY heroes in 2nd ed that could rip an entire unit apart in one turn, each and every turn.

I'm inclined to agree, though I do remember a Chief Librarian wiping out large portion of an Ork army with a combination of psychic powers and his wargear. However, this sort of thing certainly was the exception rather than the rule.

EDIT: nice sig!

Bloodknight
12-05-2008, 14:14
Exactly. Let's say one guy takes Abaddon in 2nd ed. He costed 275 points back then and is really hard to kill, and almost impossible to kill him in close combat with normal troops.

However, it would have been possible with a decent fighter since the outnumbering player decided who fought first, initiative did play a role. So I feed him 5 guardsmen to get the max. outnumber bonus (you can only get 6 models in BTB with a small base) and then whack him with a level 4 sanctioned psyker with force weapon, who would then have a minimal combat resolution score of 11 plus the highest roll from 9 attacks, making a 17 pretty likely vs Abbys max of 14 (discarding good attacks here. Since the psyker had more than twice the number of Abby's attacks in this example, it's quite possible that he got even more). That means that that psyker would whack him at least 3 times at S8.


But: you could also feed the guy a single squad of guardsmen worth about 130 and keep him busy for the rest of the game. There was no pile-in rule, so you did not have to engage the guy with more than one model each phase, and break tests for losing CC did not exist. You only tested if you lost 25% of your guys in a phase, ie that guard squad would usually test the first time down to two models.

Try to do that with Abby today. CC ubercharacters had no way of getting their points back.

Psyker powers, especially the Inquisition deck and Tyranids, were a totally different matter. There was some really uber stuff like the vortex power (that did pretty much what a vortex grenade does in Apocalypse) that could kill a lot.

Keichi246
12-05-2008, 14:53
I voted 2nd edition for one reason.

About 85% of the games I played in 2nd ed ended with an arguement...
I still think of it as herohammer - not because of CC heroes stomping everything in Close combat - but because you bought as many heroes as possible to loot the equipment and psychic powers deck.

I saw games that began and ended with the Virus card. Certain psychic powers could CRIPPLE armies. Etc.

Layers upon layers of rules interacted... oddly. Which almost inevitably caused an arguement.

The simplification of 3rd and 4th - while bemoaned by some - at least reduced the arguments *I* saw.

x-esiv-4c
12-05-2008, 15:35
Third earns my contempt for introducing the blighted AP system.

Partisan Rimmo
12-05-2008, 15:41
1st ed. and 2nd ed. were too characterful to hold lasting grudges against them.

3rd ed. was a bold new direction, but since 4th ed. and 5th ed. are improvements of 3rd ed, 3rd ed itself ends up as the weak link.

And yet the 3rd ed rulebook is my favourite...

THE CHIEF
12-05-2008, 15:56
3rd. End of story.

Brimstone
12-05-2008, 16:01
Lets keep 5th Edition out of this discussion please, unless one of you has a rulebook trying to discuss it is a waste of time.

We have an entire forum for your to discuss how 5th edition is going to ruin your life :rolleyes:

The Warseer Inquisition

razormasticator
12-05-2008, 16:03
3rd ed. A huge disappointment after 2nd ed, and a worse game than 4th in my eye.

I agree 100%

simonr1978
12-05-2008, 16:29
I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

Not really, IIRC a tooled up character with the best force field gets a 2+ unmodifiable save and characters in most armies could roll on equipment tables which for senior officers could get you all manner of powerful kit including heavy weapons. Backed up with a medic even if you get passed the armour saves and wound him the medic can heal a wound a turn and with a jump pack you get a massive 18" movement a turn, very difficult to wound let alone kill and the gap in stat line between a major hero and an average grunt was usually very significant.

A well equipped Marine commander or Guard Major Hero for example in RT could be an extremely difficult opponent to kill and my own recollections from RT were of Characters steadily slaughtering their way through squads of regular troops. Not so much these days, send most independant characters rampaging through a couple of enemy squads on their own and they wont last anywhere near as long.

Your experiences may well have differed from my own, but compared to 40K 3rd and 4th edition there were killer combos available in many army lists that would probably cause some of those who complain of broken/cheesy/beardy armies in later editions to self-combust in nerd-rage.


Not quite. Note that it says a GM is needed, unless the players are prepared to improvise a lot and reach agreements - which is TBH pretty much impossible unless they're good friends or very open-minded and capable of restraint. Take into consideration the rules loopholes in RT meant issues are bound to arise every game (if not every turn!). The GM wasn't 100% necessary, but it was strongly suggested that one was needed for a fair game.


So regardless, the minimum required to play a game of Rogue Trader is 2 people not 3.


IMO these lists actually hurt the game in a way, since they were the first step towards a tournament scene for a game that wasn't meant to be played as a competitive game.

Here again I'm inclined to disagree. The army lists and books gave a much needed sense of structure to the forces without being too restrictive and in theory at least meant players being able to balance their forces somewhat. I can see what you mean, but I think on the whole the appearance of army lists gave more benefits than disadvantages.

Vaderus
12-05-2008, 18:27
Third edition was the worst because they did more things wrong in it than any other edition. Whole armies destroyed by Jump pack character + assault squad, dumbed down shooting (AP + static basic weapons + highly depowered heavy weapons), vehicles being worthless as anything but a CC ferry all come to mind. If fact, the only thing it did right was make it more convenient to play the game because of the reduced time requirement. Second Ed. was just too unwieldy and time consuming, but otherwise was very cool. I miss the stupid things that could occur, like accidently destroying your 500 pt. character with his own vortex grenade, or the cyclone launcher shooting off all its missles everywhere and doing more damage then it had any right to.

razormasticator
12-05-2008, 19:11
I think characters were out of control in 2nd edition as well. They could totally change the face of a battle. And yes, you were constantly worried about earning your points back for that model. But that was less of a concern, I was always more worried about losing the model to a vortex grenade or perils of the warp (though it was called something different in those days).

1st turn Squat Warlord with a Warp Jump and a Vortex grenade ruined my day many times.

Partisan Rimmo
12-05-2008, 19:20
I think it's hard to convincingly argue that 2nd is better than 3rd.

I mean, 2nd wasn't so much a game as it was simple mayhem.

3rd was much more game-like in how it was structured and played. But it sacrificed its sparkle to do this.


I just thank god that the internet hadn't proliferated in the same way it has now when 3rd overtook 2nd, else the whining might have split the very mantle of the earth.

razormasticator
12-05-2008, 19:23
I voted 2nd edition for one reason.

About 85% of the games I played in 2nd ed ended with an arguement...
I still think of it as herohammer - not because of CC heroes stomping everything in Close combat - but because you bought as many heroes as possible to loot the equipment and psychic powers deck.

I saw games that began and ended with the Virus card. Certain psychic powers could CRIPPLE armies. Etc.

Layers upon layers of rules interacted... oddly. Which almost inevitably caused an arguement.

The simplification of 3rd and 4th - while bemoaned by some - at least reduced the arguments *I* saw.

This is very much true of my second edition experience as well. What we have now is a much more pure and balanced product in most cases.

Archangel_Ruined
12-05-2008, 19:35
4 turns was enough in 2nd, 6 would add another day to lots of the games I played. You have to remember you could move faster whilst not shooting, and always shoot at full range so 4 turns allowed ample movement. Add to that the horror of jump-pack herohammer and a chaos lord could happily total 3 units per game on his lonesome... 2nd is in no way a bad game though, and it isn't even a bad ruleset, just too detailed for larger games to be played comfortably in an evening. It's ideal for necromunda and gorka morka, and those games are still more fun than a bag of ferrets. As for RT needing a GM or some cooperartion, what's changed?

razormasticator
12-05-2008, 19:39
Psykers really hurt 2nd edition IMO. They whole Dark Millenium set was very powerful. Granted it wasnt as powerful as Temporal Distort was in RT... but still. If your psyker got capped in 2nd edition, you might as well pack it up the battle was lost if your enemy's 4th level psyker could do whatever they wanted uncontested.

AdmiralDick
12-05-2008, 19:46
whilst i'm all up for opinion polls, i think this one has a serious flaw at heart. most of us on this forum have never played 1st enough to make a reasonable judgement, and only a fraction more have played 2nd enough. lets face facts, the vast majority of us on this forum have really only played 3rd and 4th (i include myelf in this, i didn't play enough 2nd to make my opinion very valid). so, inevitably, those two will get the most votes. meaning that if you were to ask the reverse question i doubt seriously you would receive the exact opposite graph. it would almost certainly rank them 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st.

its also a really difficult thing to judge, because some of the editions are completely incompatable, where as others are merely different versions of one another. 4th and 3rd (and even 5th) are the same thing. its just that the designers have had more time to work on 4th and 5th consecutively. if you were asking which was better 1st, 2nd or 3rd/4th/5th, then we'd have a much firmer basis for an answer (do you prefer the role-play element of RT, the power skirmish of 2nd or the full armies of 3rd onwards).

alternatively it might be easier to talk about which change was the best/worst change to the game. whilst that doesn't directly approach the subject of the editions rules itself, it is almost certainly the biggest factor that most people will take into account when deciding which 'edition' they like or dislike. i doubt very seriously, many of us will think objectively about how we would receive each rulebook if we didn't think of them as representations of the same thing, but as seperate entities.


I disagree on this, when 3rd came out it was, imo, a leap from 2nd and much better than 4th since it was balanced. Codex creep destroyed that. The beginning of 3rd was the only point I've ever seen 40k resemble a balanced ruleset.

Never played RT, so can't comment on that.

So yeah, 4th is the worst in my mind.

i'm curious, how was 4th ed unbalanced? the Codexes and the Core Rulebook are not directly linked in 3rd/4th as they can carry on from one to the next. i'm not convinced that you could genuinely argue that from the Rulebook alone you could say that the game was any less balanced in favour of one player over another.

----

i personally voted for 3rd Ed. whilst the system it established certainly allowed the game to be infinitely more accessable to a lot of gamers (myself included), i feel that the rules were fairly soulless in comparison to 4th and the rumours of 5th. so given the option i would choose one of the later over 3rd.

however, the 4th ed codexes have, to my mind, proved to be some of the most boring and drab. the death of the armoury has made the customisation of armies minimal and simplistic and special rules seem to have fallen by the wayside in favour of the oxymoronic 'universal special rules', which has made there less reason for an individual to play any one army over another. (i'm particularly insulted by the rather juvernile patronisation of the Codex: Chaos Daemons, where it is felt necessary to teach me how to add).

razormasticator
12-05-2008, 19:51
Admiral is right... the ones who have played first and second are crusty old farts like myself.

wingedserpant
12-05-2008, 19:52
Whats least entertaining? Getting shot by assulat cannons [in my last ever game of 3rd ed I saw one jam] or been beaten up by blood Angels after a Rhino rush?

Why the former of course.

I didn't like 3rd ed though. Just it was less annoying when abused.

Supremearchmarshal
12-05-2008, 20:54
Not really, IIRC a tooled up character with the best force field gets a 2+ unmodifiable save and characters in most armies could roll on equipment tables which for senior officers could get you all manner of powerful kit including heavy weapons. Backed up with a medic even if you get passed the armour saves and wound him the medic can heal a wound a turn and with a jump pack you get a massive 18" movement a turn, very difficult to wound let alone kill and the gap in stat line between a major hero and an average grunt was usually very significant.

Still, a single Vortex Grenade or psychic power could take them out with no save allowed. Stasis Grenades could also work very well. A heavy weapon shot passing through the unmodifiable save would often kill instantly. And as mentioned, surrounding them and having a power fist (or another character) attack last would also work, as he'd be getting a +5 WS bonus by then.

I see what you mean, though. However, I think the simplest answer to this would have been to remove/nerf those ultra-powerful wargear items. characters without such powerful items were far less formidable.


So regardless, the minimum required to play a game of Rogue Trader is 2 people not 3.

Fair enough, though the game does warn you it's not ideal.


Here again I'm inclined to disagree. The army lists and books gave a much needed sense of structure to the forces without being too restrictive and in theory at least meant players being able to balance their forces somewhat. I can see what you mean, but I think on the whole the appearance of army lists gave more benefits than disadvantages.

Note I did say "in a way" - my opinion is similar to yours - there were both good and bad effects. I could have been more clear I suppose.

gruubii
12-05-2008, 23:02
I voted 2nd, but I would also vote it for one of the best too. To explain, the greatest improvement in the game has been the FOC, cause almost every 2nd ed game, was horrificly broken, an army shooting everything and chucking kitchens at one guy and he is just fine and dandy thank you. All the special characters on one side used as Allies, and heavy support everywhere, medipack, I can heal an pile of ash into a fully living character.. wheee... On the same note it had one of GW's games largest factors that being cool factor, when death spinners where in fact blenders of death, and customized characters, something I think GW needs to remember they have over thier compititon, you can make your own Leader, and be just as bad ass as "bob the supercool" but just differently. The balance of detail, vs simplicity.

Killgore
12-05-2008, 23:34
3rd ed... over simplifed

spaint2k
13-05-2008, 06:42
4 turns was enough in 2nd, 6 would add another day to lots of the games I played. You have to remember you could move faster whilst not shooting, and always shoot at full range so 4 turns allowed ample movement.

A current move is 6 inches, as opposed to 4" back in 2nd ed, and you can fire most weapons on the charge in 3rd/4th (you could only do one or the other in 2nd ed.), meaning if you're within 12" of the enemy you can move, fire, and still charge into close combat.


Add to that the horror of jump-pack herohammer and a chaos lord could happily total 3 units per game on his lonesome...

Still not seeing it. I could see your chaos lord getting taken out by a lascannon or assault cannon pretty quickly though. Enough hits and you'll fail a save, and with D10 wounds from an assault cannon or 2D6 wounds from a lascannon you'll be toast.

Still don't see how these 2nd edition heroic monstrosities were worse than current heroes and their close-combat killzones.

Steve