PDA

View Full Version : "It's like 2nd edition"? How?



Pages : [1] 2

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 01:03
Who didn't see this coming? It just would not be very "Trench Raider"-like of me not to express my opinion on the latest 40k edition. So here goes.....

This last week I borrowed a 5th edition 40k book from a local gamer and read the rules section from cover to cover. I went down to one of the local game shops and played several games using the new rules as well. Thus I think I have enough information to make an informed first impression of the new rules. The bottom line is that I'm not impressed.

Don't get me wrong. There are some things I think they did right. "Gone to ground" is a nice touch if of limited utility on the game table. The overall increasing of value of cover saves is nice too...unless you are a 3+ save troop type in which case it's almost meaningless. (but that's one of the problems with the deeply flawed cover save system, right?) The elemination of the silly "Alapha, beta, gamma" scenario type which rendered many special rules meaningless is also a good move. Finally I do like both the way blast template weapons scatter rather than are fired now and I like the way glancing hits can no longer destroy vehicles.

But the rest of it...why bother?
The much hyped "true line of sight" is a joke. Yes, you have to draw ture line of sight again but the actuall implimentation is still badly abstracted with the resulting cover save applying to members of the unit that it has no business applying to. This could have been a great concept, but it was completely botched. Close combat has been even more abstracted with hits being applied to models that did not even fight in the combat. Most damning, the worst rules changes from 3rd edition are still around: cover saves rather than "to hit" modifiers, the removal of the move value and the jury rigged patches such as "fleet of foot" that this required, the awful AP system, the inability to vehicles to move and shoot to any real degree or fire any weapons along with their main guns, and the overall dumbing down/streamlining of the rules.

Overall, this set is just 3rd/4th edition 40k with a few tweeks. Why did GW even bother? :rolleyes: (I have my own suspicions of course that revolve around needing the increased revenue that a rules change and forced obsolesence would bring about due to their well known finacial problems...)

This brings me to the title of this thread. I have heard a good number of people both in person and online make statements to the effect that 5th edition was "more like 2nd edition" or "brought back some of the flavor of 2nd edition". :wtf: Words should mean something. I was around for 2nd edition (indeed I have been playing 40k on an off since the summer of 1989 when it first hit the US) and 5th edition bears very little resemblance at all to 2nd edition. In fact it's almost an insult to one's intelligence (not to mention the memory of that superior system) to pretend it does. What do people who make this faulty comparison base this statement on? "True" line of sight? Running? Gone to ground? Give me a f--ing break.

(on a related note I recently had the oportunity to re-read the 2nd edition rules again for the first time in about 10 years. This only highlighted for me how poorly constructed the editions since 3rd edition have been and how far the game has fallen. It also reinforced my long held opinion that 2nd was far from being a "broken system" and that it really only broke down when people tried to over-scale it. That is to say that if you played managable sized games it worked very well, but when you got stupid and played 10,000 point games it fell apart. This is not something restricted to GW products, many modern wargamers find that their favorite "true scale" micro-armour rules grind to a halt when they insist on running division sized games. But I digress..)

But I'll probably wind up playing this flawed set none the less. It's well known that I occasionally play Rogue Trader games and I'm gearing up to begin running 2nd edition games again. But the nature of this game means that if I want to have a pool of opponents bigger than just a handful and if I want to participate in the tourny scene (something I have always enjoyed in most wargames genres I have participated in) I'll just have to suck it up and play a rules set I'm dissatisfied with.

Finally one good thing I can say about 5th edition is that "true" line of sight means that my Squats and my older dreadnaught and robot models have a slight advantage that did not exist in previous editions!

TR

Zowy
21-07-2008, 01:25
They needed to put out a new boxed set. The 4th ED one was not a very good value...

Zedsdead
21-07-2008, 01:46
havent played 2nd edition so i couldnt comment. My opinion having played a number of games is: TLOS+Area of terrain cover saves = the most unabstract edition to this game. I hated how Area of terrain effected targeting in 4th. Ive never saw so much arguing over wether a unit could shoot past a corner of a base some building was on.I could target you if you were within 6 inches..however not 7 ! duh. The magic cylinder of protection was idiotic.

Its simple now.. if you can see it. You can shoot it. The squad gets a cover if its within AOT or 50 % obscured. Everyone can now get hurt. either in shooting or HtH. No rocket science needed.

yea theres times things can be questionable..as to its target ability. Simply grab a laser pointer (they sell em now for a reason) or reduce the cover role.

5th edition has done some major things to "try" to reduce game mechanic exploitation.

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 01:52
5th edition has done some major things to "try" to reduce game mechanic exploitation.


..and fallen flat on it's face while doing so and just increased the abstraction/dumbing down of the rules while they were at it.

TR

DhaosAndy
21-07-2008, 01:54
Personally I dislike TLOS, but this implementation of it is just as abstract as the system it replaced. Worse it's an invitation to the WAC brigade to debate every cover save, since doing so reduces the effectiveness of any cover by one. :wtf:

OT: the only bit they should bring back from 2nd Ed is to hit modifiers, ASM was a pain and pretty pointless, since everything had at least a -1 ASM.

MrBigMr
21-07-2008, 02:01
Real problem with TLOS is that I've seen many people using individual trees on a base template to present forests, so that one can move the trees around to enable large units to fit in there, but keep the forest the same size and shape. I don't see how that helps with TLOS when you can move the trees around. And what about forests that don't have movable trees and are so thick that you can't possible fit models into it. In other words the models would hover on top of the forest (placed top of the terrain), in plain sight of everyone.

I've never seen anyone argue about terrain rules before, but maybe all the players I've know had been so like minded that we've gotten along.

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 02:05
Personally I dislike TLOS, but this implementation of it is just as abstract as the system it replaced.

Yes.
And that system has remained more or less unchanged since the disaster that was 3rd edition. My point is that they took something broken and horrible abstract and replaced it with something with comparable degrees of both.


ASM was a pain

Really?
So a little single digit math was a "pain"?:rolleyes: Come on. Even the ADHD kiddies that recent editions of 40k seem to be written for can do a little subtraction. The AP system is one of the biggest broken features of 40k and it's the one the development staff steadfastly refuse to even admit is problematic.
But your point about just about every weapon sporting at least a -1 save modifer is well taken. I used to joke that I ought to be able to save the points on my orks and pay for them unarmoured as the flak armour was pointless. But this problem could have been solved without implimenting the awful AP system.

TR

ehlijen
21-07-2008, 02:10
Wow, someone let out the longbeards...

If you don't like 5ht ed don't play it. 40k is hardly the only wargame out there.

While I don't like all the rule changes, I have yet to find one that didn't either:
1) address some metagaming problem
2) make a lot of sense when thought about
3) both 1) and 2)

I've dabbled in a bit of 2nd ed just before 3rd came out. I found a lot of it to be clunky. I much preferred 3rd ed. And from than one it just became better with each edition. Yes, while to hit or armour save modifiers could be good, the game does fine without them (there I said it). The better your armour, the less you have to worry about cover. It makes sense in one way. If cover and marine armour stacked, we'd see marines gunlining it up left and right.

And I'm sorry, but if you keep insisting that 5th is 'dumbed down', than I have to question whether you actually read the rules or just went through the pages looking for things to hate.

It's a different game to 2nd ed. 2nd ed was fine for skirmishes. Something you can still do with inquisitor, necromunda or LotR. 3rd tried to create a games system with which a battle could be played with reasonable speed. And it did ok for a first try at a new system. Now, in it's second revision, it's doing even better.

DullMentalRacket
21-07-2008, 02:11
can i have all your stuff?

GAWD
21-07-2008, 02:15
I'll just have to suck it up and play a rules set I'm dissatisfied with.

Pretty sad ... it's really hard to break away from the GW crack and go your own way.

Eryx_UK
21-07-2008, 02:20
For what its worth, I like 5th ed. I like it a lot. As far as I am concerned, GW have made the game enjoyable again.

MrBigMr
21-07-2008, 02:21
I don't think that the AP is that broken. I mean, a good armoured vest, especially ones developed recently, will protect you from several direct hits (so in other words it'll protect you through the battle), where as a good enough shot will go through it like it was paper. Same with something like an armoured vehicle (since we don't have power armour at the moment). You can shoot it with any small arms and never get through nor do anything to the armour, but one AT shot'll to through it like a hot knife through butter. You can pound the armour of an Abrams with grenades and autocannons with about the same effect as a 9mm pistol (remember, I'm talking about the armour itself, not all the systems, etc.), where as one sabot will pierce it like that.

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 02:28
ehlijen:


Wow, someone let out the longbeards...


Wow.
Someone let out the fanboy/koolaid drinker kiddies...


If you don't like 5ht ed don't play it.

I suppose you did not read my 8th paragraph above. I do prefer and still play older editions, but if you want to be involved in a largish player cmmunity of participate in competative play you have to play the most recent edition. This is true of just about every wargame system out there.


40k is hardly the only wargame out there.


Dude, I've been pushing lead around tables since about 1980 or so. I'm very well aware of the scope of the wargaming hobby and what is out there. You trying to score a point by saying something like that just makes you look foolish.


And from than one it just became better with each edition. Yes, while to hit or armour save modifiers could be good, the game does fine without them

Really? Many people (I'm certainly not the only one) think it's a mess without them. Any clue why these rules still exist in WFB?


If cover and marine armour stacked, we'd see marines gunlining it up left and right.


And that's different than now when talking about shooting based marine armies how? :rolleyes:


And I'm sorry, but if you keep insisting that 5th is 'dumbed down', than I have to question whether you actually read the rules or just went through the pages looking for things to hate.


There has been a steady dumbing down of the rules ever since 3rd ed. hit the shelves. Even fans of the new sets agree to this point...although they use the less perjorative term of "streamlined" instead.


It's a different game to 2nd ed. 2nd ed was fine for skirmishes. Something you can still do with inquisitor, necromunda or LotR.

Here is were I question if you ever actually played the early editions at all. 2nd edition created a very different scale of game than does true skirmish systems like Necromunda.


3rd tried to create a games system with which a battle could be played with reasonable speed. And it did ok for a first try at a new system. Now, in it's second revision, it's doing even better.

Heh..
Your opinion has been noted, considered (well, not really), and discarded. But if GW keeps with this trend, I suspect that 6th edition will see troops mounted four to a base and fire and close combat resolved using a single sie roll ala epic! :p

and...

DullMentalRacket

No.
You would not want most of my stuff anyway...too much "icky old models" for your taste I suspect.

mrBigmr:


don't think that the AP is that broken. I mean, a good armoured vest, especially ones developed recently, will protect you from several direct hits (so in other words it'll protect you through the battle), where as a good enough shot will go through it like it was paper.

Sure.
But anyone with any sense still hugs cover to avoid being hit and the posibility of taking that one good solid hit. What they don't do is stand in a line and trade shots with the enemy as marine players are likely to do without negative result under the AP system. The broken AP system is the single biggest factor that has led to the over abundance of MEQ armies.

GAWD:

Pretty sad ... it's really hard to break away from the GW crack and go your own way.

"My own way"? Really? Care to compare the list of wargames you play as compared to mine?
In any event I enjoy the background and the models. Plus I have way too much in the way for figures and time involved to just drop it entirely. Like I have said for the third time, I enjoy competative gaming and keeping current is the only way to indulge that interest. For friendly games I tend to play the older editions.

TR

Lion El Jason
21-07-2008, 02:46
Meh. I've been playing GW stuff since Rogue Trader. I played 2nd ed from its release to its demise.

3rd is simply a better game.
The minor tweaks to make it 4th then 5th have been almost universally improvements.

2nd ed had a crappy close combat system that made no sense and took all day
ASMs simply made all armour virtually worthless unless it was unmodified saves or 2D6 saves (Which took ages to resolve lots of hits on them)
The Eldar codex for 2nd edition was, With no exaggeration, the most overpowered army list for any game ever published and so far ahead of any other lists you had to be a retard to ever lose.
The psychic system took most of the time you were playing to use and was basically a separate game in itself.
Transport vehicles were only useful for ramming. Putting troops in them was considered madness.
Assault cannons were imba weapons that needed ... oh ok I'll give you that one, some things never change ;)

2nd edition is a poor, poor game compared to what we have now. Is 5th perfect? Well, no... maybe the designer thinks so, but we all want slightly different things from our games so for Allessio its the perfect game, maybe theres things I don't like or would have done differently... but compared to 2nd edition, its a shining beacon of gaming goodness.

Now I'll defend the new system (And I'd like to see you call me a fanboy!) but I will agree:
5th edition is nothing like 2nd edition: Thank God for that.

coldblooded3k
21-07-2008, 02:50
*hugs Trench_Raider* :(

Darkangeldentist
21-07-2008, 02:56
Thank you Trench Raider for your summary opinion of 5th ed.

I don't agree but some of the points you make are very valid.

True line of sight will lead to some stupid arguments. Cover saves and AP work fine in my opinion and I'm enjoying my games. The new rules have not changed the way I play in any way for the worse and some things are now just a lot more fun/balanced. The frustration of tactical casualties is gone and the wound allocation system has made my games much more amusing. Even if all my exarchs now seem to die very early.

I hope you manage to enjoy your games as well. Whichever edition you play.

New Cult King
21-07-2008, 02:57
Ah Trenchie :D I've missed you man.

I've yet to read or play the 5th Ed rules, but I have a sneaking suspicion my opinion will be close to yours. Ah well, I don't get to play much anyway. I just enjoy the zen of painting minis.

Lion El Jason
21-07-2008, 02:59
Oh and Hi TR, I actually didn't realise this was you until after I posted :)

Always nice to see someone I remember still around when I come back.

Nephilim of Sin
21-07-2008, 03:00
....
"My own way"? Really? Care to compare the list of wargames you play as compared to mine?
......
TR

Um, you do realize he was agreeing with you? You know, "go your own way", i.e. leave it behind, find something new (much like leaving a relationship, or quitting an addiction). Which, it is pretty sad when people ( i.e. us) still play the game if using a ruleset they hate, because they love the game still (or at least what it represented), or because they have to use a new ruleset in order to play with their armies. Basically, it is like being in an abusive relationship, or, as Gawd mentioned, being addicted to it.

Damocles8
21-07-2008, 03:01
How were missions derived in 2nd?

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 03:01
Lion El Jason:

Most of the the gripes you just outlined in regards to 2nd edition are time/complexity related. As I stated in the first post of this thread this as mostly caused by people pushing the limits of the game by over-scaling it. Yes, if you are silly enough to play 8,000 points per side the game is going to bog down when you roll armour saves and the like for every figure. The game works well when played with 1-2k points. Just as when some silly git tries to field a full Motor Rifle Division using "Challenger" (seen it done..it was not pretty) the system breaks down, you have to expect the same when you overdo 40k. 40k is designed for platoon level skirmishes...epic is for big battles.

But you are certainly correct in stating that no system is perfect. It's just that all the editions from 3rd on have caused far more problems than they have solved.

And yes, that Eldar codex was indeed nasty! :D

TR

Lion El Jason
21-07-2008, 03:05
How were missions derived in 2nd?

Mission cards. Very good idea, basically 5 VPs for accomplishing the mission. The really good thing was your opponent never knew what your mission was until you showed them the card at the end... it could be "Dawn Raid" to get to their deployment zone or "Assassins" to kill their army leader.

It is one of the things I'd miss and something I'd love to re introduce.

MiketheFish
21-07-2008, 03:07
How were missions derived in 2nd?

Players would each draw a card, and were given a mission. It sounds relatively cool, until you actually play it and realize how retarded it actually plays out. Each army would have something to do that might make absolutely no sense when compared to your opponents objective. One guy might be raiding you, and the other guy might be claiming objectives. It was completely silly.

But then that's a typical problem to the horrible abortion of a game that was 2nd edition - things that don't make any sense. I am not really sure what the original poster was trying to accomplish, except stir up trouble. If he wants to play 2nd ed, then I say go for it, but don't expect a lot of people to agree with him.

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 03:10
So Trench_Raider, i could summarise all your posts in this Thread thus:

"I read 5th edition and played a game or 2 which means i have played every single variable of every rule that is in 5th and know every rule backwards in relation to every other one. I have attained a level of 5th edition Zen unattainable to most gamers due to me playing other gaming systems.

I play other gaming systems because 3rd, 4th and 5th of Warhammer 40k were crap. I dont really need to explain why, all im going to say is that the problem with 3rd 4th and now 5th is that they aren't 2nd edition.

Please, Trench_Raider. There are many good reasons to bash any wargaming system. That isnt one of them.

vladsimpaler
21-07-2008, 03:12
I'd take the 2nd edition missions over the 5th edition missions anytime.


@ Varath-

Nice strawman argument there.

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 03:13
oh? Howso?

All i was doing was summarising his position. He says that warhammer editions from 3rd onwards are bad because they arent 2nd edition.

pityedbythedicegods
21-07-2008, 03:16
trench rider you do relize they changed the game system so it WASEN'T fantisy.
Also 5th is the best if second ed is like necromunda a 1k game would take like 5 hours.

scopedog91
21-07-2008, 03:19
Ah, this is all well and good.
Honestly, I have to play this game a good 4-6 times before I can have any real opinions I guess...
Unlike some people...

Plastic Rat
21-07-2008, 03:23
Every time I see a thread like this I STILL can't believe that GW can't just get around to bringing out a 'Veteran's' or 'Advanced' 40k. Yet for some reason they insist on making a game for 10 year olds and marketing at both kids and adults.

They try to 'scale' the game with expansions like Cities of Death and Apocalypse, yet completely ignore that the biggest issue is the basic system.

This weekend I played a small scenario that had spun off from a larger game we played a while back. 2 squads of my marines and a squad of scouts had gotten into a city that was part of a larger battle and had to destroy an objective. My opponent had managed to divert a squad of fire warriors and some Gue-vesa into the sector to take care of the infiltrators. He also had a stealth team lurking in the area.

We had the board practically COVERED in Cities of Death ruins. There was one large road that units had to try and get across without cover, but ultimately the point of cover was utterly moot for me. Half way through the game I realized exactly where every version of 40k since 3rd edition (including 5th) falls flat on it's face.

It needs a huge mass of troops to give the players a feeling that they are participating in something. Without the massive numbers to give the illusion of choice and excitement, the system is about as bland as warm water.

It didn't matter where I placed my marines, the Tau simply had to get to the objective and sit on it while firing their 30" rifles at me. If I sat in cover, he hit on 4+ and wounded on 3+ and I got a 3+ armor save. If I moved forward out of cover he hit on a 4+, wounded on a 3+ and I got a 3+ armor save.

For all it mattered we might as well have been playing on planet bowling ball and simply not have bothered putting down terrain.

I couldn't Hide/sneak (like I would have in 2nd ed). I couldn't throw grenades over a wall (like I could in 2nd ed). Nobody could set up an ambush (no overwatch). Running... well I pretty much did it every turn, except in 2nd I would have gotten a consistent 8 inches to base any plan on. With running currently.. who knows how far you'll get.

It pretty much ended with my guys running forward turn after turn into the Tau guns until the last ones died. We could have simply gotten a computer to play our game for us, and gone downstairs for a coffee.

Trench_Raider
21-07-2008, 03:26
Mikethefish:

I hate to break it to you, but in the real world it's not uncommon for two forces to have mission objectives that are almost totally unrelated to each other. This is especially the case when dealing with encounter battles.
Let's use a conflict that I have been reading everything I can get my hands on of late as an example:
In the Rhodesian Bush War ZANU and ZIPRA forces would often be involved in attacking convoys, shooting up Rhodesian farms, strong arming villagers in protected villages, and other terrorist crap. When the Security Forces arrived on the scene their mission would be to kill as many of the terrorists as possible before they fled the scene of the crime. In 40k terms one side was playing a "sabotage" mission and the other rolled "clense".

Varath- Lord Impaler:

I think he means that you are misrepresenting what I said, making arguments I did not, engage in useless hyperbole, and generally attempt to put words in my mouth.
:rolleyes:

pityedbythedicegods:

Son, could you post that in English please?

Ok folks, I'm off to bed now. Morning comes early and Monday is always a catch up day for me. I'll try to catch up on the discussion tommorrow afternoon.

TR

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 03:26
@Plastic Rat.

The System is supposed to be for 1000-3000 or bigger games

Games smaller than 1000 should probably use more advanced rules like Kill team or hell, even Necromunda.

Why dont you write those rules yourself, rather than wait for GW?



I think he means that you are misrepresenting what I said, making arguments I did not, engage in useless hyperbole, and generally attempt to put words in my mouth.


I know what a strawman arguement is, and i fail to see how. Youve represented yourself plainly. That you like 2nd edition alot and all the other rulesets are inferior because they are not using the rules of second edition.

Occulto
21-07-2008, 03:37
Every time I see a thread like this I STILL can't believe that GW can't just get around to bringing out a 'Veteran's' or 'Advanced' 40k. Yet for some reason they insist on making a game for 10 year olds and marketing at both kids and adults.

Probably because the majority of people who'd buy it, are jaded vets who'd probably just whinge online that GW had done a s*** job? :rolleyes:

TheDarkFlame
21-07-2008, 03:38
TR, I agree that it looks like you read the rulebook, looking for things to hate. Now, I never got to play 2nd edition, mainly because I'm only 17 and have only been collecting for just about 6 years. From what these guys have said, it sounds like 5th edition was just as broken as any other.

Yes, some of the new rules are abstract, and the game isn't as complicated as it was in 2nd, but that's a good thing. It means that turns no longer take three weeks to resolve. It means you can have larger scale battles and only need to bring one bucket of dice. Whatever they've done to the game, they've tried to improve it as much as they can, because they are a business. They aren't going to say "let's stick this rule in to annoy the hell out of our customers!", because then they lose money.

What you need to do is read the rules with a clear mind, play a few games with them, get used to the rules and the way they work. You may remember the old system as being better, because that's how you used to play it, but that system is done. It's over. Realise that 5th edition was never going to be a return to 2nd edition.

neXus6
21-07-2008, 03:40
I never thought I would ever say this....Trenchie I agree 100%.

You've pretty much stated exactly why 5th ed is a big step sideways rather than the huge leap forwards some people seem to be hailing it as.

I started going off 40k years ago, and was hoping 5th ed might be good enough to spark my want to play 40k, cause I love my Guard army and generally love the 40k setting, but no it didn't do anything, I am still as disinterested, if not more so cause Guard took a right kicking with some of the rules.

Unfortunatly there isn't really a "play an older edition" posibility for me cause I really only get to play in a GW store. Looks like I'm going to be focusing on my first love for the next 5 years, go Fantasy. :D

Plastic Rat
21-07-2008, 03:54
@Plastic Rat.

The System is supposed to be for 1000-3000 or bigger games

Games smaller than 1000 should probably use more advanced rules like Kill team or hell, even Necromunda.

First off, Necromunda has no rules for Space Marines, Tau, Eldar or pretty much any of the 40k races. Necromunda is it's own game with a different focus.

Second off, we each had 3 squads... that's a fair sized engagement anywhere else. Why should I need special rules for it? ...and like I said, with 2nd edition rules I could have had a perfectly engaging game with lots of depth.

Regardless, you're missing the point I'm making quite severely. I am NOT saying I want to play small skirmish games all the time with the 5th ed system. I am saying that the game we played clearly demonstrates how the current editions of 40k use masses of models to give the illusion of depth and substance.

In the end, whether I have 3 units or 30, they can still all only do 3 basic things. Move, shoot and assault. My tactics and choices come down to basically what order I want to line up and throw my guys at my opponent in.

Cover means absolutely nothing. Like I said, we might as well have taken all the terrain off the table for the difference it made. None of this has anything to do with playing the game on the wrong scale.



Why dont you write those rules yourself, rather than wait for GW?


Ok, this response comes up a lot, and I guess I'm going to have to explain it again.

1) I can write my own rules until the cows come home, getting anyone to adopt anything that is not 'official' GW stamped, well that's something entirely.

2) Basic concepts of economy. I work a 9-5. In return I get money, which I trade to GW for THEIR time spent making models, art, fluff and a rule set. Unfortunately this whole thing breaks down when GW only delivers a half a ruleset.

Plastic Rat
21-07-2008, 03:59
Now, I never got to play 2nd edition, mainly because I'm only 17


and the game isn't as complicated as it was in 2nd, but that's a good thing. It means that turns no longer take three weeks to resolve.

I'd like everyone to see the perfect example of 2nd edition criticism. This here folks, is a model upon which just about every complaint about 2nd ed I have seen has been based.

Folks who will freely admit to never having played the game, and then go on to comment on it based on what their buddy told them (who likely heard it from another buddy, or a forum... and so forth).

Man I love the internet.

neXus6
21-07-2008, 04:02
Actually I'm pretty sure Necromunda does have special rules for a fair few of the races in 40k...though naturally not newer ones like Tau.

It wouldn't be too hard to make a cross over though for smaller games, using the 40k Army rules with the Necromunda rules for moving, shooting, and close combat, the ONLY stat you would have to add would be a movement stat.

That said I agree you shouldn't HAVE to do such a thing, and I agree that there is a distinct lack of depth in 40k now. It basicly means that you can only be tactical if you design all your terrain pieces to fully block LoS. The hight level rubbish in 4th ed was nonsense, but atleast Area Terrain blocking LoS ment you could at least be a wee bit tactical.

I played a little, and I mean VERY little, 2nd ed, but quite a bit of Necromunda, and I have seen how in massed combats during big games of 2nd ed things could just take forever. The 2nd ed/Necro rules work amazingly well for smaller games, maybe squad based or platoon based (30 models ish) sized games, with some of the rules working brilliantly for bigger game but not ALL of them.
But 5th ed has just gone so far the other way, 3rd/4th ed were far from perfect but tactical movement or propper use of Line of Sight were very important.
Now that is gone...the only tactical parts really boil down to use of any terrain that does by some miracle block LoS, picking targets and hoping they fail cover saves, and things like trying to make combats last 2 turns so the enemy can't shoot you. Besides that there isn't much else.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
21-07-2008, 04:02
It is surprising how many people do think that 5th is some huge leap forward/change, and yet it really isn't. It's slightly different in a few ways, and it makes me just as annoyed as Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast did when they introduced 4th Edition for Dungeons and Dragons. It certainly seems like they both did it for money, and at least WoTC changed the Hell out of the rules. Which makes it much harder to adjust all the premade adventures I bought, but that's another story.

While I have not played any editions other than 4th for 40K, I do think that ALL of the fuss about 5th is pretty nuts. It's not an amazing new system that changes the way gaming happens while whitening your teeth, and it's not the God-awful broken piece of garbage that some people seem to feel it is. I agree with a lot of the points Trench_Raider has made, and I think that for people to dismiss his arguments as a crotchety old veteran venting about the "good old days" is both stupid and unfair. But I never thought that 4th was all that amazing anyway.

As neXus6 succinctly put it, Warhammer Fantasy is the REAL way to go! I'll keep fighting my fantasy battles and reading the 40K fiction as I've always done.

Occulto
21-07-2008, 04:06
Question time:

How many people still regularly play 2nd edition?

If you enjoy 2nd edition, but don't play regularly, why not?

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 04:07
First off, Necromunda has no rules for Space Marines, Tau, Eldar or pretty much any of the 40K races. Necromunda is it's own game with a different focus.

I know...i play necromunda. I was saying use the Necromunda rules. It isnt too difficult to adapt it for general 40k play.



Second off, we each had 3 squads... that's a fair sized engagement anywhere else. Why should I need special rules for it? ...and like I said, with 2nd edition rules I could have had a perfectly engaging game with lots of depth.

Then use 2nd edition.




Regardless, you're missing the point I'm making quite severely. I am NOT saying I want to play small skirmish games all the time with the 5th ed system. I am saying that the game we played clearly demonstrates how the current editions of 40K use masses of models to give the illusion of depth and substance.

In the end, whether I have 3 units or 30, they can still all only do 3 basic things. Move, shoot and assault. My tactics and choices come down to basically what order I want to line up and throw my guys at my opponent in.


Really? Which guys? How good are they? What are they adapted for, is it worth it? Should you flee instead? What support do they have? Can you win in a good amount of time in combat to make it worth it?

Your over simplifying it.



Cover means absolutely nothing. Like I said, we might as well have taken all the terrain off the table for the difference it made. None of this has anything to do with playing the game on the wrong scale.

Shoot a Heavy bolter at the Tau and im sure they would like some cover to be there.

My Guard army enjoys cover.

Perhaps you can consider that Cover isnt supposed to help marines as much as it helps everyone else?



Ok, this response comes up a lot, and I guess I'm going to have to explain it again.

1) I can write my own rules until the cows come home, getting anyone to adopt anything that is not 'official' GW stamped, well that's something entirely.

Ive got an Imperial Guard Codex ive written which i use freely, ive never been turned down a game, even pick up games. I play in a GW store too.



2) Basic concepts of economy. I work a 9-5. In return I get money, which I trade to GW for THEIR time spent making models, art, Fluff and a rule set. Unfortunately this whole thing breaks down when GW only delivers a half a ruleset.

GW cant please everyone. If you cant put the effort in then you'll have to make do with what everyone uses.

Basics of life, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

Overt_Spy
21-07-2008, 04:18
I like 5th edition! RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN SQUAD BROKEN! :D

I take offense to calling my game, wherein I play with tiny soldiers and make explosion noises, a game for kiddies. Oh wait...

catbarf
21-07-2008, 04:18
So Trench_Raider, i could summarise all your posts in this Thread thus:

"I read 5th edition and played a game or 2 which means i have played every single variable of every rule that is in 5th and know every rule backwards in relation to every other one. I have attained a level of 5th edition Zen unattainable to most gamers due to me playing other gaming systems.

I play other gaming systems because 3rd, 4th and 5th of Warhammer 40k were crap. I dont really need to explain why, all im going to say is that the problem with 3rd 4th and now 5th is that they aren't 2nd edition.

Please, Trench_Raider. There are many good reasons to bash any wargaming system. That isnt one of them.

Varath, you're being an ass. He explained himself on almost all of his points. And I would question your position to criticize if one must acquire a zen-like level of mastery to be qualified to comment. You're just presenting a straw-man and setting it alight.


trench rider you do relize they changed the game system so it WASEN'T fantisy.
Also 5th is the best if second ed is like necromunda a 1k game would take like 5 hours.

1. 40k is fantasy in space. There are elves and orcs. Deal with it.

2. Second is NOT like Necromunda. You don't even know the rules, you are in no place to complain.

neXus6
21-07-2008, 04:20
Thing is Vareth, yes cover still plays a part, but what they have done is replaced a huge chuck of the tactical game and replaced it with another set of random dice rolls.

Another thing I've noticed is that this change really depends on the scenery avaliable to you. In my local GW basicly EVERY single piece of terrain was classed as "Area Terrain" for 3rd and 4th ed. Now we didn't need to do that, any terrain not classed as Area back then you just used normal LoS.
So for my shop it seems like a massive change, but really the only change is that hobby forests (3 trees on big green piece of wood) are now utterly pointless.

To be honest it isn't really the "True LoS" rules that bother me the most, it is the stage after that, the "who can be hit and who gets saves" because now EVERYONE is hit no matter if they are out of range and LoS and if 50% are in cover they all get saves and vice versa. Those changes are what really make movement a lot less important I think you don't need to care about only being in range of 1 guy, don't need to care that not all your guys are in cover...etc.

I've heard said by GW Staff that 5th ed is more "Cinematic," heroic charges down the face of the guns, brutal quick combats, bullets flying everywhere...etc...to be honest if I wanted Cinematic I'd go watch a film, if I want a wargame I want Chess with an element of chance, not rev up the army and watch it go.

MiketheFish
21-07-2008, 04:26
Mikethefish:

I hate to break it to you, but in the real world it's not uncommon for two forces to have mission objectives that are almost totally unrelated to each other.

Yes I understand that thank you. Problem was that the 2nd edition mechanic to represent this did an extremely poorly job of doing so, many times creating situations that were ridiculous and nonsensical.

I am glad you like 2nd ed. You are welcome to it. If I never see a 2nd ed rulebook for the rest of my life, it will be too soon.

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 04:29
Varath, you're being an ass. He explained himself on almost all of his points. And I would question your position to criticize if one must acquire a zen-like level of mastery to be qualified to comment. You're just presenting a straw-man and setting it alight.

No, he didn't explain himself. He took it for granted that the rules were better in 2nd edition, so 5th edition is bad because they dont use these rules. He asks for to hit modifiers, a movement value and other things like it. Consider that the game has existed without a movement value and to hit modifiers than it ever did with, 3 editions of 6" move and fleet to mix it up and the AP system compared to 2 editions with their opposites.


Thing is Vareth, yes cover still plays a part, but what they have done is replaced a huge chuck of the tactical game and replaced it with another set of random dice rolls.

Its a tabletop wargame, of course it uses random dice rolls. Cover doesnt just 'play a part' it makes the game playable. There is no way that Imperial Guard could survive without cover on the board.

MiketheFish
21-07-2008, 04:30
Varath, you're being an ass. He explained himself on almost all of his points.

Who cares? What's the whole point of his post? He doesn't like it - fine. But did he really think he would change anyone's mind? That people would suddenly all rise up and demand that GW go back to 2nd edition again? Come on - really? If the OP was really honest with himself, all's he is trying to do is incite debate for it's own sake. I really doubt that he has some sort of noble motive in mind.

catbarf
21-07-2008, 04:34
No, he didn't explain himself. He took it for granted that the rules were better in 2nd edition, so 5th edition is bad because they dont use these rules. He asks for to hit modifiers, a movement value and other things like it. Consider that the game has existed without a movement value and to hit modifiers than it ever did with, 3 editions of 6" move and fleet to mix it up and the AP system compared to 2 editions with their opposites.

He stated his gripes with the new edition, and gave his reasons. What more do you want?


Who cares? What's the whole point of his post? He doesn't like it - fine. But did he really think he would change anyone's mind? That people would suddenly all rise up and demand that GW go back to 2nd edition again? Come on - really? If the OP was really honest with himself, all's he is trying to do is incite debate for it's own sake. I really doubt that he has some sort of noble motive in mind.

Given that this would be his impressions upon using the new rules, I'd imagine that he's trying to dispel the notion that 5th is more like 2nd, as per the title of the thread. He's also giving his feedback on the new rules to tell potential buyers.

So you disagree with him. Wonderful. I can't say I agree on all his points. But to start flaming and strawmanning because you disagree is silly.

Thirdeye
21-07-2008, 04:37
Thanks for the review TR, but, come on, what did you expect?

Yeah, they really screwed-up when they dumped ASM for AP. And dumping movement values for “FOF”!? What were they thinking?! But the fact is they’ve gone down this road for too long and they can’t go back now. To do so they would invalidate all their “current” codices. The best they could do is TLOS and some much needed CC fixes (still needs work).

Maybe some day they’ll re-release 2nd Ed, as a 2.5 Ed, you know, what 3rd should have been, with a reworked CC and psychic system. And while they’re at it maybe they could add-in Unit Activation, a bi-role Ranged Combat system, action points, charge reactions…

Hey, a guy can dream can’t he.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
21-07-2008, 04:41
Who cares? What's the whole point of his post? He doesn't like it - fine. But did he really think he would change anyone's mind? That people would suddenly all rise up and demand that GW go back to 2nd edition again? Come on - really? If the OP was really honest with himself, all's he is trying to do is incite debate for it's own sake. I really doubt that he has some sort of noble motive in mind.

Oh God, debate for its own sake?!!? Who wants to do that? And on an Internet forum, no less!!

Trench_Raider is saying why he doesn't like 5th. If you want to help debate the finer points of his arguments or counter with some of your own wisdom/experience, that's great. But don't come into this thread and try to shame someone into not posting their own thoughts and trying to get some feedback from other members of the gaming community.

I'm sick of seeing these posters that simply come in to name call, shoot down, abuse or otherwise waste the time of everyone else who is genuinely interested in discussing the topic at hand. If you don't care, or you think the OP is being a baby, or think the thread is worthless, DON'T POST. Just go on your merry way and leave the rest of us to discuss. Sheesh.

I'd also like to add that I feel the True LoS is going to cause some large problems for competitive tournament folk. I only play with my buddies, so we can normally come to an amiable conclusion about any disagreements, but in a tournament situation this seems like it would be a lot harder to do. Not to mention the fact that anyone can claim cover for any of their troops, no matter where the heck they are, and the only thing the other person can do is subtract one from the save they get. This also seems like a rule that could/will be abused in tournament settings.

neXus6
21-07-2008, 04:43
Its a tabletop wargame, of course it uses random dice rolls. Cover doesnt just 'play a part' it makes the game playable. There is no way that Imperial Guard could survive without cover on the board.

You didn't really understand my point, where as before tactical movement mattered and was important, now more often than not you are going to be in LoS no matter where you are, thus tactical movement has been somewhat replaced by a 4+ cover save roll.

Guard are no better or worse off, in this respect, because any sensible Guard player spent ALL of 3rd and 4th edition hugging all the cover avaliable, and this will STILL be the case.

In general the full line of sight and target validation stuff doesn't make cover less important or more important, but it makes the use of cover FAR simpler than even 4th ed and doesn't punish poor use of tactical movement at all unless you put 51% of your unit out of cover, as opposed to any model out of cover getting its **** shot off like before.

To be honest I've never really understood why Fantasy and 3rd/4th and now 5th ed 40k had such radically different rules when it comes to terrain, Fantasy seems to have a pretty good representation of the effects of terrain features, but then I suppose I'm probably just saying that because I've played fantasy longer. :p

MiketheFish
21-07-2008, 04:47
I'm sick of seeing these posters that simply come in to name call, shoot down, abuse or otherwise waste the time of everyone else who is genuinely interested in discussing the topic at hand. If you don't care, or you think the OP is being a baby, or think the thread is worthless, DON'T POST. Just go on your merry way and leave the rest of us to discuss. Sheesh.


You are probably right - I shouldn't bother really. It's just hard for me - my personal opinion of 2nd edition is so low that whenever I see a thread espousing it's supposed virtues, it's hard for me to pass up and not comment on it. So yeah, seriously - my bad.

For what it's worth, I do agree with the OP's point: 5th is not like 2nd ed. It actually has a few redeeming qualities - which is something that 2nd ed lacks.

Thirdeye
21-07-2008, 04:48
I'd take the 2nd edition missions over the 5th edition missions anytime.


@ Varath-

Nice strawman argument there.


I completely agree.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
21-07-2008, 04:52
You are probably right - I shouldn't bother really. It's just hard for me - my personal opinion of 2nd edition is so low that whenever I see a thread espousing it's supposed virtues, it's hard for me to pass up and not comment on it. So yeah, seriously - my bad.

For what it's worth, I do agree with the OP's point: 5th is not like 2nd ed. It actually has a few redeeming qualities - which is something that 2nd ed lacks.

Well... I never expected someone to apologise. Erm... thank you. Now I feel terrible.

Sometimes during all the discussion of 2nd Edition I feel like I would enjoy playing it. I would play Inquisitor all the time if anyone around me even knew what the heck it was and the gave it some darn support. I feel all of Warhammer would be improved with more detail. Maybe we could rock the very foundations by changing it from d6 to *gasp* d10!! BUM BUM BUM!! I'm sure someone has fooled around with it, but I'm a player not a designer and I'd rather just buy some GW crap than try and create my own stuff. But I am shelling out the bucks, and I believe that gives me a right to complain.

Warpcrafter
21-07-2008, 04:58
Players would each draw a card, and were given a mission. It sounds relatively cool, until you actually play it and realize how retarded it actually plays out. Each army would have something to do that might make absolutely no sense when compared to your opponents objective. One guy might be raiding you, and the other guy might be claiming objectives. It was completely silly.

But then that's a typical problem to the horrible abortion of a game that was 2nd edition - things that don't make any sense. I am not really sure what the original poster was trying to accomplish, except stir up trouble. If he wants to play 2nd ed, then I say go for it, but don't expect a lot of people to agree with him.

The secret missions were one of the things about 2nd ed. that really made sense. Militaries throughout the ages have gone to great lengths to keep the enemy wondering what they were doing and why, right up to the go-signal is given and the shooting begins.

Starchild
21-07-2008, 05:14
(on a related note I recently had the oportunity to re-read the 2nd edition rules again for the first time in about 10 years. This only highlighted for me how poorly constructed the editions since 3rd edition have been and how far the game has fallen. It also reinforced my long held opinion that 2nd was far from being a "broken system" and that it really only broke down when people tried to over-scale it.

I'll have to disagree with you here. I'm not defending 5th ed. like a fanboy; I'm just pointing out some serious 2nd edition flaws, which were nigh intolerable:

-No definite beginning and ending to missions
-Overpowered wargear cards
-Rubbish "strategy" cards
-Illogical vehicle damage dice (D4 + 2D10 + D6 :wtf:)
-Too much detail on vehicle damage charts (separate chart for each vehicle slowed the game down)
-No clear guidelines for army building other than vague percentages (Up to 25% characters, at least 25% infantry, and up to 50% vehicles allowed for very broken lists)
-Odd close combat system that diverted too much from the rest of the game mechanics
-Warp Spiders, the invincible Eldar unit which no army could defend against

What I liked about Rogue Trader and 2nd edition was Overwatch and Hiding, two things that should have never been dropped. Tweaked & fixed, yes, but dropped, no. That, plus the liberal speeds of vehicles and weapon ranges (72" for a lascannon, etc.) felt more realistic.

Basically, 2nd edition was too detailed for big battles with lots of models, as you've said. Andy Chambers made the game more simple in 3rd edition to make bigger games possible. And so the "dumbing down" began in earnest, partly to appeal to younger gamers.

So that brings us to 5th edition. I agree that vehicles should be able to shoot more. I agree that every infantry unit should have a movement value as they do in Warhammer Battle. But where 5th edition excels is in the missions. At last GW has found a way to make the missions fun and challenging-- no more boring Cleanse games. Too, the 3rd ed. army list structure (HQ, elites, troops, FA, HS) enforces a good deal of balance.

Lexington
21-07-2008, 05:28
I wish I could say that the OP is somehow flawed, but at the end of the day, Trench is correct. I plan to play 5th Ed., and get what enjoyment I can out of it, but it's like a fun-but-crappy movie - all surface and no depth. It's fun for what it is, but the basic systems behind 2nd Edition were just better, and wouldn't have been very difficult to "scale up."

Jon_Irenicus
21-07-2008, 05:40
As someone who played 2nd edition, I must say that they're different games with the same stories and characters.

The smaller-sized battles 2nd edition aims to are more adequate to the gang confronting Necromunda - resolving close combat was a nightmare. Characters were insane. Everything was insane. Eldar Vypers with pop-up attacks, overwatching Devastators, individually armed Assault Marines and Harlequins...

3rd edition had some flaws - the 'dexes were painfully objective (though sometimes that's better than just re-hashing WD articles), but on another hand they developed a bit more of each race's identity, taking away bolter-equipped Orks, and Lasgun-equipped Eldar for one.

In a way, you stopped seeing the skirmish armies composed of a percentage of miniatures (x to x% of your army can be troops, or tanks, or whatever) to people actually starting to care about an army rather than a couple of units.

Ruleswise, I admit finding it odd that Marines had a 3+ save "invulnerable" against most of the stuff that wasn't a lascannon (citing Andy C.), but the combats being resolved in initiative order made a lot more sense - rules changed a lot, some builds were left obsolete (Captains with Meltas or Plasmas, come back!), but the question is, do you have fun playing a 5th edition game?
If you can't enjoy it, no amount of complaining will ever change that. I mean, you can prefer 2nd over 5th and still enjoy the last, right? As you said, you play a lot of games. Instead of clinging to the older times, why not play a couple more games and see how it goes?

catbarf
21-07-2008, 05:47
Characters were insane.

Any player with an IQ sufficient to play the game can set up his troops so that Killy McOwnage is only chopping through one Ork Boy per turn. That's a lot of wasted points.

Where does this 'Characters killed everything' notion come from?

I wish I could play 2nd Ed more often, but most people I talk to just assume that 5th is the same thing only better.

DhaosAndy
21-07-2008, 05:49
Let's get this straight, I've played 40K since RT, I've played in plenty of tournaments. I play 40K at leat once a week, sometimes more, (work permitting) with whatever edition is current.

5th edition is another case of throwing out the baby with the bath water, TLOS in a game of static models is just silly, the 5th Ed. Implementation doubly so. It's a retrograde step, 4th Ed wasn't perfect, but area terrain blocking LOS and height levels where the way to go. Given a choice I'll take simple and clean over long winded and psueodo intuative any day. Seems to me that the most aggressive designer won all the arguments, but that's a seperate issue.

All that said, 5th Ed. Is here and I'll play it.

What's getting on my nerves, is this looking back at 2nd Ed. Through rose tinted specs. It had it's good points, THM's, the M stat, some of the missions and some of the stratagy cards. It had things I still miss, the psychic phase, cyclones exploding, TS that could work something other than a bolter, Tzaangor, cultists, etc. It also had some terrible, game breaking things, virus attacks, blind grenades, the Eldar codex, ASM's and the horror that was the 2d6 armour save, and most of all the horrendous combat system, which is still the main reason I don't play necromunda, it - just - takes - so - long. To be fair, it would be OK in an RPG, but not in a wargame, even a skirmish.

On the subject of ASM's; as long as GW remain wedded to the d6 they just don't work, the designers decided along time ago that SM's should survive 2/3 of the wounds they take from small arms. Taken together that means that to implement ASM SM's need to get a 2+ save, but then how do you give terminators a better save? We know the answer to that, those of us that played 2nd Ed. Anyway, it's the 2d6 save, do any of us really want that back?

afshinbb
21-07-2008, 05:54
well modifiers to hit for cover make more sense. and although 2nd ed had stuff needed fixing they took away too much of the random fun events that made the game "fun". like wraithgaurd getting sucked into the warp or being able to design your exarchs or invul; saves for shieldly stuff orks could make. and by the way i liked the vortex granade and the virus outbreak. so pffft.

catbarf
21-07-2008, 05:55
What's getting on my nerves, is this looking back at 2nd Ed. Through rose tinted specs. It had it's good points, THM's, the M stat, some of the missions and some of the stratagy cards. It had things I still miss, the psychic phase, cyclones exploding, TS that could work something other than a bolter, Tzaangor, cultists, etc. It also had some terrible, game breaking things, virus attacks, blind grenades, the Eldar codex, ASM's and the horror that was the 2d6 armour save, and most of all the horrendous combat system, which is still the main reason I don't play necromunda, it - just - takes - so - long. To be fair, it would be OK in an RPG, but not in a wargame, even a skirmish.

I don't think there is anyone here who will disagree with the notion that 2nd was bogged down by unnecessarily complicated rules. But with just a few changes, it could become much quicker. Simplify the vehicle damage charts. Change the two-dice saves to a D10 or somesuch. Et cetera. And with proper toning down of all the OTT abilities and troops, you'd then have a proper game that wouldn't be much slower than 5th.

The point is that, to echo your statement, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. What GW had was a functioning but flawed system, and instead of revising it they remade it.

swagger
21-07-2008, 05:55
Ah, this is all well and good.
Honestly, I have to play this game a good 4-6 times before I can have any real opinions I guess...
Unlike some people...

......Zing!

Jon_Irenicus
21-07-2008, 05:56
Any player with an IQ sufficient to play the game can set up his troops so that Killy McOwnage is only chopping through one Ork Boy per turn. That's a lot of wasted points.

Where does this 'Characters killed everything' notion come from?

I wish I could play 2nd Ed more often, but most people I talk to just assume that 5th is the same thing only better.

:eyebrows:

Characters were insane, as were psychic powers. Sorry if I don't remember the rules, but I do remember when Chaos Terminator Captains and Inquisitors reached CC. And the difference was laughable - heroes owned so much you had to resort to those tactics you just described - keep the miniatures spaced so they wouldn't get slaughtered early on.
Besides, what you said in your first paragraph just shows how broken the game was. Troops were just there so that the characters didn't get bored, for the most part.

And lastly, I didn't say 5th was better, it's a matter of what people prefer. I'm sorry if you're feeling excluded, but that's the way things are.

I prefer AD&D over the power combo 3rd and "scrambled eggs" 4th. It isn't better because it's the latest thing in the market, it's better if the people who are playing it are enjoying it more than they did other versions, or at least don't feel the need to play other editions. This is a bit more complicated, but I'm not in the mood to further develop it. I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

catbarf
21-07-2008, 06:05
Characters were insane, as were psychic powers. Sorry if I don't remember the rules, but I do remember when Chaos Terminator Captains and Inquisitors reached CC. And the difference was laughable - heroes owned so much you had to resort to those tactics you just described - keep the miniatures spaced so they wouldn't get slaughtered early on.
Besides, what you said in your first paragraph just shows how broken the game was. Troops were just there so that the characters didn't get bored, for the most part.

Yes, characters were powerful. But they could be dealt with, and when properly faced you could turn them into a hindrance for the opponent.

I'm not going to argue that there were no parts of the game that weren't OTT- Psychic powers, Vortex missiles, Tyranids eating half your army before the game began. But all those required was rebalancing. None of them were game-breaking in design.

DhaosAndy
21-07-2008, 06:10
catbarf: "I don't think there is anyone here who will disagree with the notion that 2nd was bogged down by unnecessarily complicated rules. But with just a few changes, it could become much quicker. Simplify the vehicle damage charts. Change the two-dice saves to a D10 or somesuch. Et cetera. And with proper toning down of all the OTT abilities and troops, you'd then have a proper game that wouldn't be much slower than 5th."

What your really objecting to is a couple of fundamental design decisions, namely, d6 only and a 3+ save for marines. The AP system was designed to permit the latter while only using the former. What at least some of ASM's advocates want is just to make SM save on less than 3+, they should just be honest about it.

catbarf: "The point is that, to echo your statement, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. What GW had was a functioning but flawed system, and instead of revising it they remade it."

Sometimes I feel very lonely on these boards ;) am I the only person who thinks that 3rd - 5th Ed. Is just a straight up better game than RT/2nd Ed?

catbarf
21-07-2008, 06:16
What your really objecting to is a couple of fundamental design decisions, namely, d6 only and a 3+ save for marines. The AP system was designed to permit the latter while only using the former. What at least some of ASM's advocates want is just to make SM save on less than 3+, they should just be honest about it.

I suppose so. 2nd at least didn't use the d6 for everything, so it was in a better position to switch than the current incarnation. And even leaving that aside, I don't see why ASMs couldn't work with a d6 based system. Sure, it would require balancing and would alter the metagame somewhat, but it wouldn't destroy the game. Small arms would be more powerful against Marines (Not necessarily a bad thing- flashlights, anyone?), and lighter heavy weapons would be less powerful.


Sometimes I feel very lonely on these boards ;) am I the only person who thinks that 3rd - 5th Ed. Is just a straight up better game than RT/2nd Ed?

I can sympathize with your position, which is why I and several others here feel that the game could use an Advanced ruleset, so we don't have to go off to 2nd Ed. or Epic to get a more tactical game, while those like you and younger players still have a streamlined system to work with. Make everyone happy.

Jon_Irenicus
21-07-2008, 06:18
Yes, characters were powerful. But they could be dealt with, and when properly faced you could turn them into a hindrance for the opponent.

I'm not going to argue that there were no parts of the game that weren't OTT- Psychic powers, Vortex missiles, Tyranids eating half your army before the game began. But all those required was rebalancing. None of them were game-breaking in design.

Perhaps they thought that too much of it required balancing. They took a whole new approach to the game to make it work faster.
Some people have trouble with the less "realistic" aspects of the game, but the game didn't lose it's flavour IMO and doesn't seem dried up to me - But I can understand TR's problem as it's the same thing I felt with TSR games after they were bought by WotC.

It's a matter of preference really. Sharing your opinion can be good, if you're amongst friends. On the internet it's like wrapping yourself in raw meat and then kicking a pitbull. Especially when you know that it's about a game, and most definitely it won't change it's core system.

Plastic Rat
21-07-2008, 06:26
I think a lot of people have a bit of a narrow view when it comes to 'What could have been' after 2nd ed.

2nd edition was definitely not perfect. The system DID need an overhaul, quite badly in some cases. If they'd updated the system and combined it with certain modern concepts, it could have been very successful. In fact, I think given a chance Andy Chambers might have come up with something much better for 4th ed. Just look at what he did with Starship Troopers. It's fast, simple, yet has loads of stuff to do and has a lot of tactical complexity.

For armor save modifiers weapons could have been tweaked that ONLY stuff above normal side-arms (st4) would have modifiers. This would have meant marines and everyone else would still get their normal armor saves most of the time, even orks.

Missions, army-lists and all the rest could have been fixed and brought into a tighter game with depth.

Stop looking at stuff with an 'either/or' mindset.

ehlijen
21-07-2008, 06:30
No, you're not DhaosAndy.


But disregarding that question, they were seperate kinds of game. 2nd ed was a squad level game, 3rd+ is a company level game. Such games need to be abstraceted if they are to be completed in any reasonable amount of time. For a company level game, 5th ed is actually fairly complex, while it is not complex enough to be a detailed squad level game. To each his own, but I prefer 5th ed to what I have seen of 2nd ed. It allows for more strategic options through allowing more different types of units to be fielded to work as an army. In second ed that never really became an option as games that huge automatically became weekend affairs. And I'm only talking about the equivalent of 1.5k in 3rd ed here.

I really think we all keep misunderstanding GW:
They give us 3rd and with it an opportunity to use the larger armies we as vets have assemebled and actually finish games in an evening, and it is decried as a 'kiddie game' because the simplifications necessary for that cut out several hours of calculating. It's similar to how apocalypse was brought out as a chance for those with large collections already to actually use them all and everyone just assumes GW is trying to make kiddies buy more stuff. While they would certainly like more stuff being bought, half the stuff in the apoc book requires extensive conversion work or FW models, hardly the stuff for 'kiddie beginners'.

Anyway: No matter what GW does, someone will scream foul and accuse them of dumbing things down. Even when they are trying to give something to veterans. No wonder they stopped trying (read the WD lately?). 5th ed is an attempt by them to actually fix the problems that crept up in 4th ed without (important bit) making veterans unable to use their model collections! And as thanks they get accused of marketing to 'kiddies' once again.

DhaosAndy
21-07-2008, 06:32
Thing is, there about as likely to return to dn as they are to move away from IGYG.

That said, even 2nd Ed. Didn't allow you to see through a wood. ;)

cailus
21-07-2008, 06:34
Fifth edition is indeed not even close to 2nd edition. I'd actually say it's more closer to 3rd edition with combat being more ruthless, no more area terrain and with static pillbox vehicles. I do like the new mission system but this didn't really need a new edition.

I do miss 2nd edition though.

Weed_Bix
21-07-2008, 06:37
Oh well new edition, it aint bad and after all it is just a game.
cheers, :skull:

Plastic Rat
21-07-2008, 06:40
:eyebrows:

Characters were insane, as were psychic powers. Sorry if I don't remember the rules, but I do remember when Chaos Terminator Captains and Inquisitors reached CC. And the difference was laughable - heroes owned so much you had to resort to those tactics you just described - keep the miniatures spaced so they wouldn't get slaughtered early on.

Oh man, this old argument. Let's see. A game a few months ago, just before 5th ed came out. My jump-pack chaplain leaps over a building and assaults a 5 man squad of space marines. I roll my 5 attacks. Re-roll the misses and proceed to deal 5 wounds to his squad before they can even react. No armor saves because I'm using a power weapon.

Result? 5 space marines DEAD. My opponent didn't even get to roll a single die.

Now let's look at 2nd edition. A character can ONLY attack models in base to base with him. My opponent can choose to keep his squad spread out to bog me down in combat or heck, even flee melee if he wants to. Each guy even gets to roll against me no matter what, and every opponent I attack after the first gets a cumulative +1die to his attacks. So by the time I'm trying to kill my 5th opponent that turn he's rolling MINIMUM FIVE dice against my character.

Please explain your reasoning to me.


Oh well new edition, it aint bad and after all it is just a game.
cheers, :skull:

I have to thank you for the way your input has enriched and challenged my thoughts. The sheer intellectual value your comment has contributed to this thread has changed lives and created entirely new ways of thinking.

Weed_Bix
21-07-2008, 06:48
ehlijen:
Dude, I've been pushing lead around tables since about 1980 or so. I'm very well aware of the scope of the wargaming hobby and what is out there. You trying to score a point by saying something like that just makes you look foolish.
Oh my... lead models, 1980, "Dude" you're so hardcore

Hulkster
21-07-2008, 07:04
I have been playing since 2nd edition

I think it is a better system for a few squads but playing a 3000pt game(1500pts roughly in current points) could take most of a day.

now 5th seems like a better edition, Ramming wasnt thought through properly and I am not entirely sure on this 4+save when shooting through squads but it seems so far to be better than 4th and the abortion that was 3rd.

regarding ASM, it doesnt work in 40k. It works in fansty because there is limited ranged weaponry. They also have a sytem where strength modifies armour saves as well. It works in fantasy but I dont think it works in 40k. Oh and please dont post a comment about me finding maths hard or some **** because I disagree with you OP, I thought that previous comment you made like that was very childish.

RTHM should be in instead of cover saves IMHO, but I cannot see it happening any time soon.

Oh and to the guy who said they the changed it to move it away from fantasy, you are half right. They were worried that the 2 games were basically the same so they changed 40k. it wasnt changed because of it per se, it was just part of the process (if that makes sense to anyone lol)

Faolain
21-07-2008, 07:10
What's getting on my nerves, is this looking back at 2nd Ed. Through rose tinted specs. It had it's good points, THM's, the M stat, some of the missions and some of the stratagy cards. It had things I still miss, the psychic phase, cyclones exploding, TS that could work something other than a bolter, Tzaangor, cultists, etc. It also had some terrible, game breaking things, virus attacks, blind grenades, the Eldar codex, ASM's and the horror that was the 2d6 armour save, and most of all the horrendous combat system, which is still the main reason I don't play necromunda, it - just - takes - so - long. To be fair, it would be OK in an RPG, but not in a wargame, even a skirmish.

On the subject of ASM's; as long as GW remain wedded to the d6 they just don't work, the designers decided along time ago that SM's should survive 2/3 of the wounds they take from small arms. Taken together that means that to implement ASM SM's need to get a 2+ save, but then how do you give terminators a better save? We know the answer to that, those of us that played 2nd Ed. Anyway, it's the 2d6 save, do any of us really want that back?

Excellent point. Looking back it's easy to forget the game breaking flaws and just remember the good times.

I loved 2nd ed, and actually quit playing when 3rd came out because I hated the changes so much. I play Eldar and I never lost against my friends. They got pretty frustrated with that and eventually it got pretty hard to convince them to play against me. When Warp Spiders took the nerf bat that was the final straw, I quit for several years. I still miss their heavy flamer templates and the wack rules, but the new ones aren't so bad.

I returned for 4th and accepted the system, and now I enjoy it. It's fun to look back on the days of yore, but the games really took forever and the Eldar codex was broken. I really wish they'd bring back the M stat, that made armies unique. I'm glad they got rid of all the crazy charts you had to roll on, that was nuts and bogged the game down. Everything had it's own chart and odd dice.

I also don't miss how certain heavy weapons would jam 1/6 times, or how artillery misfired 1/6 times. I never had many as an Eldar player, but I never thought it fair for the other guys.

Back then a sample piece of wargear would be something like:

Ultra Random Megablaster

Short +2 Long +1 Armour Piercing: D12-D4+D3+12/inches you moved, keep remainders

If the attack hits, roll on the following chart:
1: The attack horribly misses! You take a wound.
2: The attack goes crazy! Roll on this other chart over here.
3: You deal a wound with a -3 armour save. This is the boring result.
4: You deal D3x2-1 wounds, with armour saves at a -2, and the firing model gets moved in a random direction. If a misfire is rolled on the artillery dice, roll another D6 and reroll until you get a 1. Then, lay your model on its side until your next turn.
5: I'm afraid you're going to have to roll on these other charts. Please consult Codex: Charts.
6: Critical Hit! The attack counts as a vortex grenade.

Occulto
21-07-2008, 07:14
Thing is, there about as likely to return to dn as they are to move away from IGYG.

Agreed.

Considering how much flak GW copped over the "let's make all your codices obsolete in one fell swoop" I don't think they'll be pulling that trick again.

Which is what would be required if they wanted everyone to pull out the d10s or d20s.

Sidstyler
21-07-2008, 07:20
I think 5th edition is alright. I never played 2nd and barely experienced 4th, so my opinion may be of little value, but still. :p

After reading through this thread though, I wish they would have included some of the funner things from 2nd edition. Mission cards in particular sound awesome. I think it'd be great if they could make the game appeal to those that liked the older edition without overcomplicating it and turning off the newer generation (i.e., me) who think their games take long enough as is. :p

Gutted
21-07-2008, 07:44
IMO 2nd edition is about on par with 4th in terms of quality. It certainly worked well for smaller battles and was lots of fun. The huge amount of customisation it offered while it could be exploited add just that little bit more to army design, especialy character design.

My personal fix for 2nd edition is 4th/5th edition stat lines (with movement added, why they removed movement I have no idea) and the Necromunda ruleset.

TheDarkFlame
21-07-2008, 07:55
I'd like everyone to see the perfect example of 2nd edition criticism. This here folks, is a model upon which just about every complaint about 2nd ed I have seen has been based.

Folks who will freely admit to never having played the game, and then go on to comment on it based on what their buddy told them (who likely heard it from another buddy, or a forum... and so forth).

Man I love the internet.
Hey, I'm going off of what other people on this thread have said already. Hell, since I wrote that other people who have been playing since Rogue Trader have said the same or similar things. I'm not even criticising 2nd edition, I'm saying that the OP doesn't need to be so closed minded, and there are obviously reasons why GW have made these changes. There's no need to be a dick.


Back then a sample piece of wargear would be something like:
Ultra Random Megablaster

Short +2 Long +1 Armour Piercing: D12-D4+D3+12/inches you moved, keep remainders

If the attack hits, roll on the following chart:
1: The attack horribly misses! You take a wound.
2: The attack goes crazy! Roll on this other chart over here.
3: You deal a wound with a -3 armour save. This is the boring result.
4: You deal D3x2-1 wounds, with armour saves at a -2, and the firing model gets moved in a random direction. If a misfire is rolled on the artillery dice, roll another D6 and reroll until you get a 1. Then, lay your model on its side until your next turn.
5: I'm afraid you're going to have to roll on these other charts. Please consult Codex: Charts.
6: Critical Hit! The attack counts as a vortex grenade.

Now that is messed up. I'm glad it's not that complicated.


After reading through this thread though, I wish they would have included some of the funner things from 2nd edition. Mission cards in particular sound awesome.

I agree, some things from 2nd Edition in this thread sound useful, or more interesting, without bogging the game down too much.

Bathfinder
21-07-2008, 08:56
I did not take the time to read all the posts in this thread, so if I make some obvious statement that seems silly because someone already made it or some such, that may be as it is... :)

To me, the issue that I have with the transition from 2nd to later editions is that thay made it a different game. from 3rd the changes have been less, to try to tweak the game as they see fit, for whatever reasons. I am really sad because they didn't try that in 3rd.

Why then do I think that it is a different game? It is hard to answer, since it is more of an intuitive feeling, but lets see now:
1. They removed the concept of modifications almost altogehter and made it more binary (and by that I mean you either get it or you don't, like with cover saves and armour modifications).

2. They removed a lot of control over your units in game. Some I belive was for good and some was for bad, but it removed depth from the game, and some made it downright silly.
for example: Every member in a squad must choose the same target:wtf:. In 2nd the models with special and heavy weapons could choose target independently, which ment that you didn't have to waste a lot of shots on the wrong target.

3. I think the codexes (codexi?) and army list construction was funnier because you had more freedom to equip a lot of squads, characters and vehicles as you saw fit. Not always but it felt more fun. Now that is streamlined. Some of the cheesier effects could have been easily removed.

4. Shooting vs. cc. For a system that is supposed to simulate combat with advanced firearms there was a better balance between these two concepts, in that it was harder to get into cc before you got shot up if you were not careful, since shooting was at a longer range relative movement rate and ability to get into cc. Wether cc was better or not I am not sure, but I am leaning towards that even that was better before, even if it was a little too complicated. Why? Because models that excelled in cc was somewhat protected from hits by their ws. Nowadays you got to have 9 or more to reduce the hit chance of a model with ws 4. Else they will hit on a 4+ anyway, and I really liked their system to get weight of numbers to count. (for those who wasn't there: for every model that attacked the next one got +1 on the same target, that is...easier to hit anyway)

5. Did I say movement rates? What in the name of **** was wrong with different troops having different movement rates? It gave them caracter. And running beeing double movement was just simple, and a lot more streamlined than the fof-system.

6. One other change is the complexity and time it takes to play. That is less nowadays, but honestly, I would rather have a fun game in 3 hours that a less fun game in 2 hours. This could have been fixed by tweaking 2nd. See below...




Question time:

How many people still regularly play 2nd edition?

If you enjoy 2nd edition, but don't play regularly, why not?

Hell yeah. I still play 2nd. I think I nowadays play about as much 2nd as 4th(eh...5th) depending on who I play with, answering the second question, often I don't play 2nd with whose that has never playse 2nd, but I am planning to teach them wte way of enlightenment some day too :D

Right now I am trying to figure out what I really liked with 2nd, in order to write an "advanced 40k" system. I guess there are discussions abou that sort of thing in the development-section, so lets keep it there...

I think it is more fun that later editions. Not that they are entirely boring, just a different gaming experience.




Originally Posted by Faolain View Post
Back then a sample piece of wargear would be something like:
Ultra Random Megablaster

Short +2 Long +1 Armour Piercing: D12-D4+D3+12/inches you moved, keep remainders

If the attack hits, roll on the following chart:
1: The attack horribly misses! You take a wound.
2: The attack goes crazy! Roll on this other chart over here.
3: You deal a wound with a -3 armour save. This is the boring result.
4: You deal D3x2-1 wounds, with armour saves at a -2, and the firing model gets moved in a random direction. If a misfire is rolled on the artillery dice, roll another D6 and reroll until you get a 1. Then, lay your model on its side until your next turn.
5: I'm afraid you're going to have to roll on these other charts. Please consult Codex: Charts.
6: Critical Hit! The attack counts as a vortex grenade.
Now that is messed up. I'm glad it's not that complicated.



Now that is messed up. I'm glad it's not that complicated.



:D Waha. Yeah, sure, that is like the damage table for the D-cannon. Probably one of the more extreme examples of this. But honestly, I really like those crazy things, it makes my whole day to have a model dropping like a bomb down on the game board, but sure, the really complicated things should have gone

borithan
21-07-2008, 09:13
Players would each draw a card, and were given a mission. It sounds relatively cool, until you actually play it and realize how retarded it actually plays out. Each army would have something to do that might make absolutely no sense when compared to your opponents objective. One guy might be raiding you, and the other guy might be claiming objectives. It was completely silly.
Think someone has already said this, but this actually makes sense. Forces don't always have exactly opposing objectives.

On using Necromunda for smaller games of 40... I would imagine it is possible, and it has stats for many of the other races, but it does lack certain things. The units represented in Necromunda are extremely limited (the Eldar are limited to an Eldar ranger, Chaos to Chaos Space Marines, though you could also use much of that for SM, Tyranids to genestealers.) A number of the non-human weapons are missing. Not saying it isn't possible, but it wouldn't be as easy as maybe has been suggested. Would be easier if you have access to second edition books though, I imagine.

I would actually like to see a Necromunda style skirmish game which was done to include all forces, and I mean also including the possibility for gaining experience etc, which at the moment is designed for fighting between gangs of humans.

On regards ASMs, I do think they should have returned in some form. Having it based on strength I do not think would be a good idea, being too close to Warhammer (and in some cases just making little sense when a sword, in the hands of the right person, having greater penetrating power against power armour than a boltgun). However, if the weapons had set modifiers, and it was limited to more powerful weapons (having every weapon bar about 2 having -1 modifiers makes some armour near pointless... though I guess the same could be said for having most of the armies being played with having AP 5. Have guard ever been allowed to frequently get a save?).

Different movement would not be a bad idea either, and frankly I feel a return to a smaller move distance compared to shooting would be a good idea as well, though I guess this would necessitate longer games, which would make larger games much longer, which they would want to avoid.



4: You deal D3x2-1 wounds, with armour saves at a -2, and the firing model gets moved in a random direction. If a misfire is rolled on the artillery dice, roll another D6 and reroll until you get a 1. Then, lay your model on its side until your next turn.
I like this... wouldn't want to have to implement anything like it in a game though.

Azulthar
21-07-2008, 09:26
I really would have liked a 2.5th edition of 40k. 2nd edition wasn't well balanced and a bit too cumbersome, but 3rd edition went way too far.

I've adjusted to 4th/5th edition though. It's simple, fast, but less. Easier to play now that 40k isn't our most important pastime anymore, but perhaps it isn't our most important pastime anymore because it's too simple :p

oCoYoRoAoKo
21-07-2008, 09:33
OK, ive been playing since the tail-end of 2nd ed and feel that i should add my input to this. Even though i hadn't played it alot, there were elements of 2nd that i feel could have really benefitted from entering 5th (most notably their interpretation of running models and the M stat).

Being a somewhat fan of 4th (gasp) with regards to the way it deals with cover saves and line of sight, i find that the current rules set gives armies with high armor saves at an even higher advantage then they already had - previously, you could use terrain to block line of sight, shield your advance and try to get into combat in one piece (as needed for the likes of genestealers, hormagaunts, orks and other low armor troops). the same goes with shooting - terrain could be used to sneak up on opponents, break them apart with some well placed shooting whilst at the same time protecting you from enemy fire (my destroyers in particular enjoyed this).

going on to my point about high save armies (MEQs in particular) - at the moment the only reliable way to deal with them is through AP1 weapons, power weapons in combat, or through sheer volume of firepower or attacks (which reduces the game to just rolling dice to see if you can 'get lucky'. with the LOS and cover rules, they get an almost automatic 4+ inv. this combined with their 3+ save means that options 1 is almost out of the window, option 3 is boring and option 2 is downright risky (having to survive that long walk accross the field and all).

what im trying to get at is that instead of making a 'better' game then 2nd (or 4th for that matter), they have simply made the game 'different'. as a side note, Bathfinder, i aggree with all of your points.

Cy.

WLBjork
21-07-2008, 09:54
Hey Trench_Raider... we get vehicle movement bands back!


The game still has no soul though...


Oh, and I'm absolutely shocked at some of the misconceptions of 2nd. Folks are moaning about Trench_Raider not playing 5th much before falling into that trap with their opinions of 40K 2nd. (Don't even get me started on Faolain's "example", which is very inaccurate).

If, for the changes from 2nd to 3rd they had:

*Reworked ASMs (removed them entirely from basic weapons and pistol version of basic weapons would have been my chosen method)

*Switched CC to using the tables (as they did, good job there)

*Simplified hit location tables and scribed them into the core RuleBook (more detailed than the current system, but still retaining the flavour of 2nd).

*Altered the Psychic Phase to be similar to the current Fantasy Magic Phase

Then the most commonly re-iterated issues from 2nd would have been resolved.

totgeboren
21-07-2008, 10:52
I think to-hit modifiers and asm are as flawed as the current system.

Say a human is standing behind a bush. With the to-hit mod system, an ork would have his chances to hit reduced by 50% (BS2 and a -1 to-hit for the bush).
That equal to a 4+ coversave.
If a space marine fires at the same guardsman, he would have his chances to hit reduced by 25%, so the effectiveness of the same cover is suddenly halved.

And if the same human is covering behind a wall the orks shooting is reduced by 100%, whilst the marines in only reduced by 50%.

If you are a marine-fan, asm and to-hit modifiers are better than the current system, if you play a non-meq race, the current system is better.

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses.

I for one likes that marines for example can make a daring dash over over ground, risking only slightly more losses than being in cover, whilst say orks who tried the same would be cut down in droves.
Its gives heavy infantry a purpose on the tabletop other than just being elite. They can do stuff light infantry cant, whilst light infantry can hold terrain better than heavy infantry and so on.

boradush
21-07-2008, 11:02
But if GW keeps with this trend, I suspect that 6th edition will see troops mounted four to a base and fire and close combat resolved using a single sie roll ala epic!

Sounds good to me!

The Clairvoyant
21-07-2008, 12:22
i played 2nd ed from the start and continued with 2nd through 3rd ed.
Towards the end of my 40k days, i was playing a lot more WFB and have played fantasy solidly for the past 10 years or so. I hadn't actually noticed there was a 4th ed such was my snubbing of 40k! :D

I'm now returning with 5th ed 40k and from what i've read of the rules (haven't finished yet) they seem ok.

I noticed one or two people mentioning 40k taking ages to play. Yes combat could take a while, but generally everything was pretty quick in my gaming group. We'd play a 1500pt game in our school lunch hours and we'd play a 10k game on a saturday.
The vehicle damage tables we all pretty much knew off my heart and armour penetration was easy to work out (not as easy as these new rules, but hardly a chore).
The only 'difficulty' came when using a ranged weapon in combat with a tank when you had to remember the split bands as to what extra bonus dice to use.
For example, a venom cannon in close combat (as it wasn't a move or fire weapon, you could use it in combat :D) was D6+D10+D20+8 - being D6 basic, D10 for the damage the weapon causes (are there any multi-wound weapons anymore?) plus the bonus dice of D20 as it was S8 or higher, plus the strength.

The close combat system although rather cool was flawed when it came to rolling lots of dice. As such, if you took the 'frenzon' wargear card (gives you frenzy or hatred), people were taking hatred for the rerolls rather than the frenzied double attacks.

That said, when it came to fighting between two legendary heroes in combat, the 2nd ed 40k rules were fantastic as it gave you a real sense of a fight. I'd love to see these rules brought back for 'challenges' in new 40k

DhaosAndy
21-07-2008, 12:34
@ totgeboren; The whole point of THM's is that the skill of the firer reduces the advantage of the targets cover.

Azulthar
21-07-2008, 12:50
If you are a marine-fan, asm and to-hit modifiers are better than the current system, if you play a non-meq race, the current system is better.
I don't agree with this statement. Marines were much easier to kill back in the days of asm.

Colonel Fitzgerald
21-07-2008, 12:54
ehlijen:



Wow.
Someone let out the fanboy/koolaid drinker kiddies...



I suppose you did not read my 8th paragraph above. I do prefer and still play older editions, but if you want to be involved in a largish player cmmunity of participate in competative play you have to play the most recent edition. This is true of just about every wargame system out there.



Dude, I've been pushing lead around tables since about 1980 or so. I'm very well aware of the scope of the wargaming hobby and what is out there. You trying to score a point by saying something like that just makes you look foolish.



Really? Many people (I'm certainly not the only one) think it's a mess without them. Any clue why these rules still exist in WFB?



And that's different than now when talking about shooting based marine armies how? :rolleyes:



There has been a steady dumbing down of the rules ever since 3rd ed. hit the shelves. Even fans of the new sets agree to this point...although they use the less perjorative term of "streamlined" instead.



Here is were I question if you ever actually played the early editions at all. 2nd edition created a very different scale of game than does true skirmish systems like Necromunda.



Heh..
Your opinion has been noted, considered (well, not really), and discarded. But if GW keeps with this trend, I suspect that 6th edition will see troops mounted four to a base and fire and close combat resolved using a single sie roll ala epic! :p

and...


No.
You would not want most of my stuff anyway...too much "icky old models" for your taste I suspect.

Obviously the quote system on this misses out the things you quoted in your message but I have a problem with the overall tone of this post.

It's really hard to convey intonation and speed of deilvery in the written word, writing first person - unless you spell everything phonetically like in the dictionary but I don't know anyone who can do that. So what a reader is left with is the words that you have used, and nothing else.]

It occurs to me that much 'rank pulling' and condescension went on in your post, which is a real problem with the whole internet forum medium in general, but I would say this to your face as I would hope your comments would be said to me in kind. A high post count is no indicator of knowledge or the voracity of one's opinion - merely an indicator of the level of one's spare time. Talking down to people for disagreeing with you on the rules of a game just seems to me to be a waste of your energy and your insight.

My intention here, Trench Raider, is not to 'flame' you for your post, but to point out to a fellow gamer as if he needed to be reminded, that we must try to get along. Play nice - not score cheap points in a harsh way in an argument over something so trivial as to be senseless.

When 2nd edition came out, I welcomed it for its more integrated approach, simpler vehicle rules and breadth of army lists to choose from. When 3rd edition came out, I hid away from it almost until 4th edition was upon us. Now, does my opinion that 2nd was better than 1st or that 4th was very slighty better than 3rd, and an improvement overall on 2nd matter? I don't think so. What matters in the end I think is, can we, as intelligent adults, agree on a set of rules to play - no matter what rules, and play a game that's enjoyable?

Someone on this forum said that Fluff is rules - driven. I agree. If the IG had armour saves of 2 with Grenade Launchers as standard, the Fluff would be very different. Different troops require different tactics. In the same way, rules developments can be seen to herald new tactics - if you preferred to play in a way that the old rules were more sympathetic to, perhaps you would enjoy refining your skills, honing your list, stepping up to opponents and the challenge of a new set of rules and realise that the rules themselves aren't important - it's enjoying yourself that is.

Failing all that, the end of the day sees us gamers a small and niche group - if we can't get along with people, GW are going to have to release Solohammer - for players with no mates...

x-esiv-4c
21-07-2008, 12:59
I don't really understand how TLOS is implemented by cover modifiers aren't.

tsutek
21-07-2008, 13:19
I have to agree with the OP. 5th ed bears no resemblance to 2nd ed. I also agree with most of the points he is making about certain 5th ed rules to be counter-intuitive.


(the following _might_ be off-topic, but I'll include it anyway - you decide)

The official GW politic in the 40k rules 'evolution' seem to be as follows (as depicted by JJ):

1. RT was too RPG-like
2. 2nd Ed 40k was too 'skirmishy'
3. 3rd Ed was the first to offer 'streamlined' gameplay.. but had it's mistakes (was this also the time when GW became PLC?)
4. 4th Ed just tried to patch the mistakes made in the 3rd Ed
5. 5th Ed is the best 40k so far

This is backed up with "40k wasn't really that big until people got into building armies.. and these armies became bigger and bigger, so the rules mechanics had to be 'streamlined'."

What do you think about this?

Ok, they're a miniatures company after all. If people complained back then like they do now, it must have been something like "OMG I will stop buying your stuff if I can't field my 398452975947 point kachoogas all at once - DOWN WITH GW! GW IS THE S474NZhh!" The amount of whining must have been devastating. So something had to be done..

And now, we are coming to the midpoint in the circle. Apocalypse is here, to give us as massive games as we want. At the same time, the emphasis on using bigger armies in games has reached a point where the game does not work too well below a certain points limit.

So how can this be sorted out? People like me enjoy a more 'skirmishy', more detailed 40k for casual gaming with friends - which was what 2nd ed was all about. Army builders & competitive players enjoy /5th ed/apoc 40k. Can these things co-exist in contemporary 40k?

In a recent episode of 40k radio, there was a GW worker (apparently been working there for a long time) who talked about a game having two sides to it:

* The hardware (your army, ie. miniatures)
* The software (the rules / codexes).

If you think about a game system in this regard, then why oh why can't GW give us the choice to decide which 'version' of their software we want to use with our hardware? Why can't they give us 'driver updates' (ie. tau/etc forces for 2nd ed 40k/necromunda) for their old software, while promoting the new system more openly?

If you just look what happened with microsoft windows (bear with me) you'll see why this might work. MS made Vista, but people didn't want to upgrade. So they had no choice but to continue offering support for XP, even though it was no longer the 'current' OS in their product line. Had they not done that, a lot more people would have switched to other OS's (I did though - and OSX is very nice, I must say!).

yeah, I should probably not post stuff right after lunch.. air bubbles.. *belch*

Malachai
21-07-2008, 13:43
I like 5th edition.It's not perfect and some things could have done better, some things became better and the game is still enjoyable, period.
2nd edition is along time ago, get over it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
21-07-2008, 13:56
..and fallen flat on it's face while doing so and just increased the abstraction/dumbing down of the rules while they were at it.

TR

Tell you what, why not just tell us when you find something you actually like that GW has produced. Rest of the time, we'll take it as read you don't like it. :p

Varath- Lord Impaler
21-07-2008, 14:15
Tell you what, why not just tell us when you find something you actually like that GW has produced.

He'll say second edition. :P

AGC
21-07-2008, 14:18
Alright I've been doing a great deal of thinking about game design in general (Currently working part time so have time to do so) and I think I finally have worked out the problem.

Now a big health warning about everything I am about to say, I am not a 40K player though I had friends who were playing 40K when Rogue Trader came out and I've kept an eye on it ever since. Always loved the concept but been deterred by the implementation.


The original post echoes much of what I've heard about 40K, about something having been lost between 2nd and 3rd edtion. It all sounded very familiar to me, when yesterday I realised it was the same as the Civilization 1 versus Civilization 4 debate.

For those who don't know Civ 1 units had "Attack, Defence, Move" attributes. Civ4 had "Strength, move" and a whole slew of special rules, (Cavalry don't get terrain bonus when defending etc.)

What's going on here is that older games had a complex world, in which simple playing pieces were moved about. These pieces interactions were governed by a set of numbers that were all modified by their place in the world. This meant that essentially everything worked the same way. It was just a case of arithmetic. The problem being that there was a heck of a lot of arithmetic.

In more recent games, designers have moved away from having a complex world in favour of having a simple world with standardised units but each with special rules. So we have units which are immune to X, always do Y, the problem with this is that it's very hard for designers to add to the system without breaking stuff.

Ironically it's the latter type of game system (Special rules) that is closest in concept to chess. Which is of course a grid with playing pieces that each behave in their own unique way. While the former game system (Stat blocks) is closest to reality (Everything uses the same rules but with different values). The distinction's a bit like Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition versus Dark Heresy.

Which end of the spectrum you prefer is very much a matter of personal preference. I prefer Stat blocks but with a small amount of modifiers, others want their "always destroys all units within 4 squares when next to a totem of porridge". Take your' pick.



Apologies for long windedness.

Eryx_UK
21-07-2008, 14:34
Players would each draw a card, and were given a mission. It sounds relatively cool, until you actually play it and realize how retarded it actually plays out. Each army would have something to do that might make absolutely no sense when compared to your opponents objective. One guy might be raiding you, and the other guy might be claiming objectives. It was completely silly.

Actually, I quite like the sound of that. It would make games more diverse and interesting.

Templar Ben
21-07-2008, 14:46
Hello Trench Raider, as always it is good to see you again.

I too am guilty of comparing 2nd Edition to 5th. I have done so because I view the changes in 40K to be the developers realizing that they need to get away from the model of the last several years. Apocalypse brought back Vortex Grenades, Orks have the grot gun, and they are starting to change the way the game feels. It is again about being a bit silly.

I didn't play 2nd when it was out. There just wasn't a 40K market in my area. I have played it since (first game was about a year ago) and it is far from perfect. The game is showing its age as well as the fact that not all choices were equally thought out (virus bombs and the like). Those are issues which can be easily changed as well as removing some of the needless complexity (multiple dice for penetrating hits - d8+d6+d20 could be more easily expressed).

My problems with 5th is the level of change for changes sake. Let's look at "True" LOS. I can see one member of the squad while the rest are hidden behind a wall. My squad pours fire onto poor trooper number 4 that was foolishly behind a window. Suddenly Trooper 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 die. Luckily for trooper number 4 he had a grenade launcher. How is that "True" anything? Fifth is just as abstract they just tell you that it isn't.

Cover saves. A unit that is mixed with a different unit gets a coversave. There is not really a valid reason and it is counter intuitive. Here is an example (that I didn't draw) showing a Land Raider shooting at two Tau squads and each receive a cover save because you don't have "True" LOS to the majority of either unit that doesn't require you to fire between two members of a different squad.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d112/r555ung/Internet%20Play/example2and3.jpg

Here is another example. If you shoot between two trees in the same forest you get a save. If you shoot between two trees in two different forests you get none.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f20/lordmalektheredknight/separate.jpg

Again it is counter intuitive.

How about 3 marines with bolters can hold an objective but 10 marines with 4 heavy bolters cannot? How about the fact that jump marines painted red can hold an objective and ones that are painted blue cannot?

As far as movement, I can move 6" and then run 1" to 6" (random) and I am stuck doing nothing else. Otherwise I can move 6" find time to take aim and shoot and then assault 6" and still be able to hit you with my sword.

I have found that 2nd edition with all of its flaws is still a much more intuitive rule set. I can use modern tactics. Perhaps it is a failing on my part for not seeing the beauty of Napoleonic warfare with chainsaws but those rule sets tend to be cleaner than what has been presented. Even WHFB is cleaner.

As I said in the beginning though even I am guilty of making the comparison. I wasn't truly referring to gameplay as much as wacky feel though.

Odd_Motorbike_Guy
21-07-2008, 14:49
The main problem with second edition was casual gamers, i.e. me. I want something to entertain me after work and I'm happy to spend thousands on my entertainment. I buy wargames, board games, video games, go to movies, the theatre etc. etc. I am the ultimate casual gamer. I spend a solid mint on it.

I went to a GW store during 2nd edition, I liked the look of the miniatures. I wanted the big alien bug things. I was shown a test game and walked out. I do not want a complex system like third. I want something simple, fast and fun. I spend a mint, they want some of that cash. It's simple business really, their customer base wasn't growing fast enough because their game was too complex. If you want to play that complex game, that's fine. I have never seen the '5th edition police' coming to beat down someone poor 2nd edition player's door.

You're also entitled to your (wrong) opinion, the gamer kiddies are a lucky side effect of smoother rules. My segment is the money they were chasing. I don't want a complex game. I want a beer and chips game.

p.s. I double dare you to tell me my math is poor.

RFT
21-07-2008, 14:50
It's probably true that some of the criticism of 2nd Edition has got exaggerated over the years, but the core of it's fairly well justified. games were too slow, Close Assault was a pain in the neck, and characters/pyskers were overpowered.

when I came back to 40k 2 years ago, much of what was swept away, I didn't miss.

The one thing I would bring back is movement rates - it's the only thing I'd characterise as a streamline/tweak too far - I don't see what dropping them did to improve the game or make it easier...

Azulthar
21-07-2008, 15:26
I continued playing 2nd edition for quite some time after 3rd was released, until I (we) finally stopped playing altogether. 3rd edition was really horrible, I still don't get why they went so far. The codices were an insult as well *shudder*.

Heh...I almost get angry just thinking about it again. Like I said, I've learned to appreciate 4th/5th now, but the release of 3rd was a slap in the face, coming from 2nd.

Wraithian
21-07-2008, 15:43
I was in the same field as Azulthar. I played RT, then 2nd ed. I felt (and still do feel) that 3rd edition was an insult at us older gamers, and a straight back-alley abortion of a system, and stopped playing altogether. As I've mentioned in a different topic, "Pamphlet: Chaos," was just a poorly thought out bandaid to appeal to the original 2nd ed "Overpowered Chaos" players. It was like 3rd ed was a very uncreative way of redesigning a choppy ruleset to fit with awesome fluff, insulting those who had been playing for years.

And here we are in 5th, and I'm enjoying it, just as much as I enjoyed 2nd. Why is that? Because I see, now, that they are essentially different games in the same universe with the same title.

Aaron
21-07-2008, 16:55
It's probably true that some of the criticism of 2nd Edition has got exaggerated over the years, but the core of it's fairly well justified. games were too slow, Close Assault was a pain in the neck, and characters/pyskers were overpowered.

I think everyone would agree that 2nd edition had its problems. However, a lot of players believe that 99% of these problems could have been easily fixed. Toning done characters has nothing to do with the core rules, for example.

This topic has been done to death though. GW aren't going to go back to 2nd edition rules/scale and it doesn't look like they've got any plans to ditch the current core mechanics in the next 10 years.

If you don't like 5th edition then you can either continue playing 2nd edition, play a different wargame or come up with your own rules.

catbarf
21-07-2008, 17:10
You're also entitled to your (wrong) opinion

Thank you for enlightening us with your expert knowledge of GW business strategies, based on the immense amount of knowledge that comes with playing a demo game and not liking it. Any other fantastic insight?


the gamer kiddies are a lucky side effect of smoother rules.

There is ample evidence that Games Workshop specifically targets younger gamers. It's not just rules.


p.s. I double dare you to tell me my math is poor.

Well, you said 3rd was a complex system you don't want, so I fail to see how you prefer fifth.

Durath
21-07-2008, 17:49
There is ample evidence that Games Workshop specifically targets younger gamers. It's not just rules.

I read this on forums all the time, but I just don't see this so clearly.

Could you cite some of this evidence?

What I've noticed is that their marketing of the 'beginner' products has gotten toned down some, but honestly, I don't see this as being a 'younger' market targeting scheme. I see it as trying to appeal to anyone regardless of social standing and background.

In fact, if anything, it was 2nd edition that really had a 'fisher-price' quality to it. But again, I don't think that was marketing, as much as it was just a step in the evolution of the 40k art and design group.

The dark side of 40k has actually never been darker, its just not on the first few pages. All you need to do to find it is keep reading...

lanrak
21-07-2008, 18:22
Hi all.
Well I think perhaps the studio have made it more obvious that 40k 5th ed is more for fun than serious competition.

As they failed abysmaly to make 40k suitable for ballanced competative play, to catch the kiddies that like this type of game.

So the more narrative driven game play is moving back toward the motivation of 2nd ed perhaps?

However while the dev team insist on not using any mathematics in the rule sets , in a game all about statistical comparison and probability you are bound to get COUNTERINTUATIVE ABSTRACTION.

It is possible to get much more intuative but complex and tactical game play with , LESS complicated rules than 40k 5th ed.

But to do this you have to use VERY SIMPLE mathematics.
EG Stat A - Stat B= result C.
Dammage - armour value = save roll required.
Str 6 - AV 2= roll over 4 to save.

If everthing has a size.(How big it is.)
The larger the unit the higher the 'size number.'

Then soft cover can give a reduction in target size.
A size 3 unit behind size 1 wall counts as a size 2 target.
So soft cover makes units harder to see.

Hard cover could simply add to the AV of the unit hiding behind it.
EG plascrete bunker AV +3.
So an AV 2 infantry unit in the bunker count as AV5
vs direct fire.

Tons of simple mechanics like this would make a game with intuative proportional results.

Rather than roll a D6 and see what happens, then depend on 70+ special rules to get the game play interesting...:rolleyes:

IJW
21-07-2008, 18:56
COUNTERINTUATIVE ABSTRACTION.
No matter how many times you mis-spell it, intuitive still doesn't contain an 'a'. ;)

borithan
21-07-2008, 18:56
What I've noticed is that their marketing of the 'beginner' products has gotten toned down some, but honestly, I don't see this as being a 'younger' market targeting scheme. I see it as trying to appeal to anyone regardless of social standing and background.
Well, I think that outside kids, it is unlikely there are many other social groups to attract. Wargaming is a bit of a minority interest, and I do not know anyone who started playing when they were an adult. It isn't really something that most people think about, and I cannot really imagine someone going "You know what? I am going to start playing with toy soldiers even though I have never done this before" in their mid 30s or something.

The only demographic they have much chance selling to are gamers, or kids. Gamers they have attracted already (though they could try attracting some more, or maybe make a better job retaining them), but if they want to expand, they have to sell to a new market, which is only likely to be kids.



In fact, if anything, it was 2nd edition that really had a 'fisher-price' quality to it. But again, I don't think that was marketing, as much as it was just a step in the evolution of the 40k art and design group.
Wasn't that what they referred to their "orange phase"? I started playing in Third edition, but I had seen some second edition stuff, and yes, it did seem a bit... colourful.



The dark side of 40k has actually never been darker, its just not on the first few pages. All you need to do to find it is keep reading...
Why do people keep suggesting this as a reason that it isn't aimed at kids? The kind of kids that I think people are referring to (ie low to mid teens) I personally find actually like really dark things. And the ones who I have seen make complaints that they are trying to make 40k darker, or deny the slightly more hopeful elements on this site, tend to be players who have been playing for a very long time (it might simply be nostalgia, but they are not kids).

wingedserpant
21-07-2008, 19:52
Today I lost a battle due to not knowing a rule. Should the rules become more complicated there will be more focus on taking advantage of certain rules rather than using actual tactics.

A dumbing down of the rules can only mean the strenths and weaknesses of a unit is more obvious so when you try to combat it you won't be in for a nasty surprise due to not knowing about a special rules.

It says so in the new rulebook that 40K is a game where if you went into any club anywhere in the world you would be able to play a game with a complete stranger. More rules means more ways to see the same thing meaning more conflicts. A dumbing down of the core rules is not a bad thing at all.

The reason movement values and all those complex rules still exist in fantasy is because it is a completely different game. You are in blocks of troops not skirmishing. They don't have a 360 line of site when it comes to shooting and charging. This means that slower units if moved correctly could still get a charge in on a faster unit. In 40K a movement value for each troops would mean the fast would always get the charge.

IJW
21-07-2008, 19:55
Wasn't that what they referred to their "orange phase"? I started playing in Third edition, but I had seen some second edition stuff, and yes, it did seem a bit... colourful.
The Red phase, yeah. Partly because Bryan Ansell took the Design Studio's entire collection of painted models with him when he sold the company off.

For reference, I'm looking at a 2nd ed. box set here and it says 'aged 12 to adult' while the RT rulebook had '16 to adult' on the back. It's a long LONG time since GW started aiming at a younger audience...

MiketheFish
21-07-2008, 20:00
Well, I think that outside kids, it is unlikely there are many other social groups to attract. Wargaming is a bit of a minority interest, and I do not know anyone who started playing when they were an adult. It isn't really something that most people think about, and I cannot really imagine someone going "You know what? I am going to start playing with toy soldiers even though I have never done this before" in their mid 30s or something.


Actually I personally know about 6 or 7 non-gamer people who started miniature gaming in their late 20's onwards. And this is a large chunk of a smallish group of gaming people. Perhaps your demographic is just local to you personally?

Discord
21-07-2008, 21:17
No, fifth and second are definitely nothing alike. That said, I far prefer second edition to the current 3rd-5th edition, which are basically the same ruleset with modifications. Why do I prefer it? Well, back in the day, we had two 40k games. Warhammer 40k for your skirmishy small force needs and Epic for those massive armies facing each other. One where you could spend lots of time on every single model and play with twenty marines in a 1500 point game, another where painting armies was really fast and models were mounted five to a base, since moving over a hundred little men individually...well, sucks, to be honest.

Then 3rd edition got released. We then had two 40k games. One designed for big battles and another for...big battles. Hold on. The problem with 3rd-5th is that Epic already does the same thing, only better. The rules are better and more tactical, moving one hundred orks (I witnessed a 1500 point footsloggy army semi-recently, the movement phase was a pain) is simple, huge armies are cheaper, easier to paint and transport and feature more stuff. And there's no game for small forces anymore. Sure, you can play combat patrol, but the current 40k ruleset isn't too hot for 400-500 point games. 3rd-5th is somewhere between 2nd and Epic in terms of game size and is kind of pointless. I don't -want- to paint dozens of 28mm scale miniatures, I just want a handful of them. If I have to paint fifty identical marines, I'll just do them in 6mm in an evening or two.

However, opponents for 2nd edition are harder to find than opponents for Epic and I love 40k, meaning I'll probably get suckered into making some of my 2nd edition armies bigger just so I can get a game in. Think of it more as an exercise in dice rolling and killing time in a fun way, not as anything remotely tactical or engaging. Like, say, watching any Hollywood movie. Lots of explosions and no plot. :p

Mr. Smuckles
21-07-2008, 21:38
I seriously doubt the simplification of the rules has something to do with the target audience, rather I would posit that the rules become simpler in order to allow you to play with more models easily. Given that GW's much-stated goal is to sell as many minis as possible, it makes sense that they'd gradually simplify the ruleset, cheapen troops and encourage you to play larger games (Apoc). Small games of (under 2.5k) have been an exercise in masochism since 2nd edition went away, but gigantic plastic wars carried out under 5th edition/Apoc rules have been some of the most fun I've had on the tabletop in years. I for one am glad for the simplification of the rules simply because I favor massive games.

catbarf
21-07-2008, 21:57
Today I lost a battle due to not knowing a rule. Should the rules become more complicated there will be more focus on taking advantage of certain rules rather than using actual tactics.

A dumbing down of the rules can only mean the strenths and weaknesses of a unit is more obvious so when you try to combat it you won't be in for a nasty surprise due to not knowing about a special rules.

It says so in the new rulebook that 40K is a game where if you went into any club anywhere in the world you would be able to play a game with a complete stranger. More rules means more ways to see the same thing meaning more conflicts. A dumbing down of the core rules is not a bad thing at all.

The reason movement values and all those complex rules still exist in fantasy is because it is a completely different game. You are in blocks of troops not skirmishing. They don't have a 360 line of site when it comes to shooting and charging. This means that slower units if moved correctly could still get a charge in on a faster unit. In 40K a movement value for each troops would mean the fast would always get the charge.

Well that's a non sequitur if I've ever heard one.

Why would advanced rules mean more special rules? If anything, it would mean less special rules, since troops can have their uniqueness within the framework of the game and not needing special abilities for it.

And the more detailed the game, the larger role tactics play, and the more scope you have to create tactics.

Templar Ben
21-07-2008, 22:04
Today I lost a battle due to not knowing a rule. Should the rules become more complicated there will be more focus on taking advantage of certain rules rather than using actual tactics.

A dumbing down of the rules can only mean the strenths and weaknesses of a unit is more obvious so when you try to combat it you won't be in for a nasty surprise due to not knowing about a special rules.

It says so in the new rulebook that 40K is a game where if you went into any club anywhere in the world you would be able to play a game with a complete stranger. More rules means more ways to see the same thing meaning more conflicts. A dumbing down of the core rules is not a bad thing at all.

The reason movement values and all those complex rules still exist in fantasy is because it is a completely different game. You are in blocks of troops not skirmishing. They don't have a 360 line of site when it comes to shooting and charging. This means that slower units if moved correctly could still get a charge in on a faster unit. In 40K a movement value for each troops would mean the fast would always get the charge.

I find that 10 intuitive and elegant rules are better than 3 poorly written rules. Look at some of the things I wrote before. 3 marines with bolters can hold a hill but 10 marines with 4 heavy bolters cannot. That is due to a counter intuitive rule. Being "gamed" is common when what should happen does not match what will happen under the rules.


I seriously doubt the simplification of the rules has something to do with the target audience, rather I would posit that the rules become simpler in order to allow you to play with more models easily. Given that GW's much-stated goal is to sell as many minis as possible, it makes sense that they'd gradually simplify the ruleset, cheapen troops and encourage you to play larger games (Apoc). Small games of (under 2.5k) have been an exercise in masochism since 2nd edition went away, but gigantic plastic wars carried out under 5th edition/Apoc rules have been some of the most fun I've had on the tabletop in years. I for one am glad for the simplification of the rules simply because I favor massive games.

I agree that the change in rules is due to wanting to get more models on the table.

Edit: Winged Serpant. Perhaps you should look at LotR. It is definitely not shooting heavy (1/3 of an army can be armed with ranged weapons) but it is a clean system.

Lars Porsenna
21-07-2008, 22:58
As neXus6 succinctly put it, Warhammer Fantasy is the REAL way to go! I'll keep fighting my fantasy battles and reading the 40K fiction as I've always done.

If we're going to play that game, then I'll disagree and say WAB is the way to go; WHFB is just "dumbed down" from that...

Damon.

EldarBishop
21-07-2008, 22:58
Saying 5th is like 2nd is like saying that 2+2=5!

2nd was very slow to play at times, the CC mechanics took hours, the characters were overpowered, the psychic phase was like a sub-game of 40k.

However, there were some mechanics which were/are better. To hit modifiers based on range, cover and speed. Save modifiers based on weapons and strength. Different units had different movement. Some of these could have been fixed with some minor adjustments instead of throwing the whole thing out the window. A lot of these things are still found in Fantasy... and IMHO Fantasy is a much better game. There are more tactics involved... and it's not just whoever charges wins (as someone stated earlier).

I feel that 40k was oversimplified in 3rd and since then they've been trying to add stuff back in to try (<- key word here) and make it more interesting. Granted from what I've read (and the one game I've played) 5th seems to be the best edition since 2nd... but it's nothing like it, so stop trying to compare them!

Durath
21-07-2008, 23:21
Think of it more as an exercise in dice rolling and killing time in a fun way, not as anything remotely tactical or engaging. Like, say, watching any Hollywood movie. Lots of explosions and no plot.

Actually, I played 2nd edition from a month before release date on. I quit when 3rd Edition came out cause it was (as someone else pointed out) a complete abortion of rules.

I came back right before 4th edition, as the trial assault and vehicle rules made 3rd ed. palatable, and we knew 4th ed. was going to further fix alot of the issues. I see 5th edition more as "3rd edition - v3.0", instead of "2nd ed. - part 2."

That being said... your comment on 5th being nothing remotely tactical or engaging suggests that 2nd edition was more tactical and engaging. I heartily disagree.

I know full well that 2nd edition had its own quirks that made the game abusable. Say, for instance, pop-up attacks. There was nothing tactical about eldar sitting in the back of their deployment zone raining death on your troops without fear of reprisal.

No game is perfect, but to say 5th ed. lacks tactics is a bit presumptuous, and wrong.

MadHatter
21-07-2008, 23:21
I remember the days of old and thinking back, i know i am looking through rose colored glasses. I had a hard time with the 3rd edition changes because it took so many things i liked and tossed them right out of the door.

But certain things were abused beyond reason, over watch being one of them. I had watched games where both side sat in over watch doing nothing. My favortie was a Tyranid army doing this.

I miss the old Pyschic phase but it did slow the game down. And in the beginning thier fi for it was beyond going over board in dumbing it down. only allowing a pysker one power. Removing the Orcs all together.

I think they could make the game a bit detailed without the streamline they desire being lost.
Bringing back ramming was great. Making it harder for glancing shots to destroy even a transport is great, I may break out my transports and put them back on the table.

I can understand both sides of the coin. And if you live in the seattle area and want to play a 2ed game let me know I am for it. But I like the fast pace games where I can field a army of 3000+ and be done in a evening.
I liked 4th edition and expect that in 10 - 15 yrs back I will look at it through the same rose colored glasses as 2 edition. I will hold off on my thought of 5th till I have played some more games out side of my gaming club.

I am not saying I do not have a few grips about it, only that I want to give it a chance.

Temprus
21-07-2008, 23:59
Actually, 5th Edition IS a lot like 2nd. It "needlessly" changes things just to sell a new edition. :angel:

Ozendorph
22-07-2008, 00:44
Each edition has it's good and bad points (and I've been around for all of them). 2nd Ed is still my favorite, but mostly for nostalgic reasons, I must admit.

Good stuff about 2nd Ed:

To Hit Modifiers - bring them back, you clowns
Save Modifiers - bring them back, you clowns
Psychic Phase - I realize this is highly debatable, but I loved the card system
Pairing up missions - made for interesting games

Bad stuff about 2nd Ed

Troops on fire. Turn after burning turn.
Overwatch - cool idea, but man did this slow things down
Close Combat - Where your WS9 chaos lord just killed everything in base2base, again, without even breathing hard. This was also the system that forced everyone to take 2 swords on every possible model (for parrying)
Virus Outbreak - lol

Anyway, I do like 5th (so far) and I think they improved over the 4th Ed system, but the devs need to swallow their pride and bring back a few more of the awesome elements from 2nd.

MadHatter
22-07-2008, 00:54
i think if you brought Over watch back for units with sniper rifles would be great. And even some armor modifiers might make some interesting revisions. I did like the missions the way they were in 2nd edition, And I have to agree I miss the cards of 2nd edition psychic phase. it may have slowed the game down a touch but it was fun.

Gutted
22-07-2008, 01:44
Close Combat - Where your WS9 chaos lord just killed everything in base2base, again, without even breathing hard. This was also the system that forced everyone to take 2 swords on every possible model (for parrying)


I think 2nd edition Close Combat would have been superior is they did two things. Change how parry works and use the 3rd edition stat lines.

LuciusAR
22-07-2008, 02:23
Older gamers (of which I am one, 15 years as a 40K player) rabitting on and on about how great 2nd was and how its not as good now as it used to be always remind me of Daily Mail readers rabbiting on about how evreything was better before the 60's.

2nd edition was a very flawed game. I'll say it.

It was overlong to play, combat was a horrific ill thought out nightmare, turning charts and separate data faxes for vehicles were very unnecessary and pointless. And as for psychic powers!!! what a horror show they were, the whole concept of the Dark Millenium boxed set detailing all abilities and Wargear, often before the codex came out was just mind boggling stupid.

Yet I've got fond memories of it. But I'm not going to pretend it was this immortal game to which so subsequent editions will stand up. It simply wasn't as good as rose tinted view would have you believe.

And for the record Streamlining and Dumbing down are not the same thing. Not even close. Rules which are not necessary to the flow of the game are simply clutter and must be purged. Yes some hiccup's have been made along the way but I think 5th is exceptionally close to the full potential of the game. Ive only played a few games so far so cant say for certain. But unlike many I am at least prepared to give it a fair shot.

EldarBishop
22-07-2008, 02:28
Actually, I played 2nd edition from a month before release date on. I quit when 3rd Edition came out cause it was (as someone else pointed out) a complete abortion of rules.

I came back right before 4th edition, as the trial assault and vehicle rules made 3rd ed. palatable, and we knew 4th ed. was going to further fix alot of the issues. I see 5th edition more as "3rd edition - v3.0", instead of "2nd ed. - part 2."

That being said... your comment on 5th being nothing remotely tactical or engaging suggests that 2nd edition was more tactical and engaging. I heartily disagree.

I know full well that 2nd edition had its own quirks that made the game abusable. Say, for instance, pop-up attacks. There was nothing tactical about eldar sitting in the back of their deployment zone raining death on your troops without fear of reprisal.

No game is perfect, but to say 5th ed. lacks tactics is a bit presumptuous, and wrong.

Not sure if the tactics comment is directed at me... however, I stated that IMO Fantasy has more tactical requirements then 40k (probably ever) has.

Wadders
22-07-2008, 02:32
2nd Edition 40k was Garbage

5th edition is flawed but much better.

We will all never be happy.... that is life so just play

catbarf
22-07-2008, 02:35
2nd edition was a very flawed game. I'll say it.

I got into the hobby about a year before the release of 4th Edition. I'm not looking through rose-tinted glasses, and yet I feel that 2nd was in itself a solid game system. And I certainly agree that it was very flawed, but nothing a bit of editing couldn't fix.


And for the record Streamlining and Dumbing down are not the same thing. Not even close. Rules which are not necessary to the flow of the game are simply clutter and must be purged.

Absolutely. But the removal of to hit modifiers, ASMs, and other similar traits of the game aren't streamlining. They removed tactical elements of the game in favor of simplicity. I'd hazard that that is the very definition of dumbing down.

kingofthenerds
22-07-2008, 02:38
Older gamers (of which I am one, 15 years as a 40K player) rabitting on and on about how great 2nd was and how its not as good now as it used to be always remind me of Daily Mail readers rabbiting on about how evreything was better before the 60's.

2nd edition was a very flawed game. I'll say it.

It was overlong to play, combat was a horrific ill thought out nightmare, turning charts and separate data faxes for vehicles were very unnecessary and pointless. And as for psychic powers!!! what a horror show they were, the whole concept of the Dark Millenium boxed set detailing all abilities and Wargear, often before the codex came out was just mind boggling stupid.

Yet I've got fond memories of it. But I'm not going to pretend it was this immortal game to which so subsequent editions will stand up. It simply wasn't as good as rose tinted view would have you believe.

And for the record Streamlining and Dumbing down are not the same thing. Not even close. Rules which are not necessary to the flow of the game are simply clutter and must be purged. Yes some hiccup's have been made along the way but I think 5th is exceptionally close to the full potential of the game. Ive only played a few games so far so cant say for certain. But unlike many I am at least prepared to give it a fair shot.

I agree with you 100%, I've played for longer than half the people I play have even been alive. Yes I played first in the late 80s I had a copy of the game in 1988.

And Frankly 2nd edditon was a steaming pile of crap. It was needlessly complex and was almost entirely reduced to whose vortex grenade landed on the opposing character. I remember pointless lame game after pointless game decided by a single virus grenade.

2nd sucked.

I checked by looking up my first white dwarf.... purchased May 1988.

Occulto
22-07-2008, 02:44
Absolutely. But the removal of to hit modifiers, ASMs, and other similar traits of the game aren't streamlining. They removed tactical elements of the game in favor of simplicity. I'd hazard that that is the very definition of dumbing down.

Rules != tactics.

Simplicity != dumbing down.

Epic is a very simple game, with very simple mechanics (much simpler than 40K) but is tactically very challenging. It's almost the definition of "easy to learn, difficult to master"

nurglez
22-07-2008, 02:49
I started playing during 2nd edition, and have been playing since. All my friends and I have wanted were to basically play epic but 40k style, the larger the better. And this is what 3rd edition + has been catering for. Sure you can say that they are just trying to make more money, but hang on a second, this is a company, they exsist to make money.

I have fond memories of care bears, and of thundercats episodes, but to watch any of those now are just painful (ok, carebears i can stil enjoy). Looking back on things always makes them seem better.

Personally, I do think that hit modifiers and save modifiers make more sense, but, I'm not a game designer, I'm jus a sheep that plays what they tell me to play, and I enjoy doing this.

Eldartank
22-07-2008, 02:52
Wow, I just love the tone of some of the posts here....

"You like the newer edition? You suck!"

"You like the older editions? You're scum-sucking slime!"

"You don't like the newer edition? Yer filthy pond scum!"

"You don't like the older editions? Yer lower than filthy pond scum!"

Yeah, I know, I exaggerated just a little bit. ;) But seriously, it's only a game. People DO have different tastes and interests. It would be a rather boring world if everyone without exception all had the exact same opinions, beliefs, likes and interests.

I tend to like the 5th edition so far. And I have no problem whatsoever with people who don't, or who prefer any of the older editions. I like 5th edition, and if you like 2nd or 3rd or whatever, well, that's perfectly fine, and more power to you. I respect your right to enjoy whatever the heck you want to enjoy. :)

horrorghost
22-07-2008, 04:19
Epic is a very simple game, with very simple mechanics (much simpler than 40K) but is tactically very challenging. It's almost the definition of "easy to learn, difficult to master"

I'd like to add one word to that: chess! Very simple mechanics, 100% tactical (no luck involved)

catbarf
22-07-2008, 04:33
Rules != tactics.

Simplicity != dumbing down.

Epic is a very simple game, with very simple mechanics (much simpler than 40K) but is tactically very challenging. It's almost the definition of "easy to learn, difficult to master"

I agree entirely, but you must admit that a fair degree of verisimilitude was lost with the stripping of the rules.


I'd like to add one word to that: chess! Very simple mechanics

Is chess really simple? Every single unit has its own unique methods of movement, and interaction with the other pieces. And then there's weird situations like en passant and castling. Food for thought.

Occulto
22-07-2008, 06:03
I agree entirely,

Dude, I just contradicted what you originally said. Now you're agreeing with me? That must be a record in internet persuasion. :D


but you must admit that a fair degree of verisimilitude was lost with the stripping of the rules.

As for appearance of reality? Well good troops are still better than bad troops. Big guns make a mess of units. Cover and armour still makes units harder to kill. I'm not seeing a great deal of difference in the core concepts.

The only difference is how the mechanics lead you to that result. More complex mechanics don't require more intelligence, they simply require more patience. Or do you need a higher intelligence to roll polyhedral dice and use different shaped templates?


Is chess really simple?

Yes it is.

Ever read the rules for chess? They fit on a single A4 piece of paper and can be taught to a new player in an afternoon. Just because a game can be played by children, does not make it a children's game.

40K is the same. Two ten year olds can play it, but that game won't be as complex or subtle as a game between two veterans of twenty years.


Every single unit has its own unique methods of movement, and interaction with the other pieces. And then there's weird situations like en passant and castling. Food for thought.

I really think you're reaching here. :p

Rioghan Murchadha
22-07-2008, 06:53
If we're going to play that game, then I'll disagree and say WAB is the way to go; WHFB is just "dumbed down" from that...

Damon.

Actually it's not, Ancients is based on fantasy and hasn't been around nearly as long. WAB is WFB 4th edition with magic and fantastic stuff removed, and a tonne of unit special rules added on.

Oh, and just for the sake. Someone, I think it was Varath mentioned that the current crap (AP, no move stat etc.) has been around for more editions (3rd,4th,5th) than it hasn't. Well, Guess what. RT came out in 1987, and 3rd ed was released in 1998 (That's an 11 year spread). From 1998 to 2008 (now) is only a 10 year spread, so the older goodies have still been around longer than this new fangled crap ;)

The one thing that I definitely prefer about the older versions, is that there was more time between editions so that stuff wasn't made redundant so quickly.

Plastic Rat
22-07-2008, 07:27
40K is the same. Two ten year olds can play it, but that game won't be as complex or subtle as a game between two veterans of twenty years.


I'm really hoping that one day I'll be able to discover these complexities and subtleties of which you speak. So far, neither myself nor any of the friends I know in real life have managed to find any in 40k. I guess it's all just over our heads.

Sidstyler
22-07-2008, 07:43
I'm really hoping that one day I'll be able to discover these complexities and subtleties of which you speak. So far, neither myself nor any of the friends I know in real life have managed to find any in 40k. I guess it's all just over our heads.

Ha, mine as well...oh well, we're just noobs, we wouldn't possibility understand. :p

junglesnake
22-07-2008, 07:49
I don't want this to sound to negative but here we go!

2nd edition was around for a while and it worked. To say that it didn't would be to say fantasy didn't work because many of the mechanics were the same. The point of 3rd edition was to move it away from "fantasy with guns".

Remember people were walking 4", running 8" or declaring a charge (8"). The psychic phase was pretty much the same as the magic phase of the fantasy game back then with very little exception. It was fun and enjoyable.

As for it taking ages to play - there are two arguments here. It didn't take that long if you knew what you were doing. And then you are creeping into another discussion altogether. There are the fast and furious wargames that last an hour or two and then there are the longer wargames that can take up to days if you want them to.

To say that the quicker ones are more fun is personal preference but does not make a game better. I have played some incredibly detailed systems for historicals where a couple of hours play will perhaps only see the vanguard of the army locking horns. The best thing to do is to keep an open mind and allow the game to take you and just try to enjoy it.

borithan
22-07-2008, 08:14
The Red phase, yeah. Partly because Bryan Ansell took the Design Studio's entire collection of painted models with him when he sold the company off.

For reference, I'm looking at a 2nd ed. box set here and it says 'aged 12 to adult' while the RT rulebook had '16 to adult' on the back. It's a long LONG time since GW started aiming at a younger audience...
First 40k themed game I played was Space Crusade... It said for ages 10 and up, I played it first when I was about 6. I know it was aimed at children anyway, but those age things have always been daft.

Hrafn
22-07-2008, 08:16
Rules != tactics.

Simplicity != dumbing down.

Epic is a very simple game, with very simple mechanics (much simpler than 40K) but is tactically very challenging. It's almost the definition of "easy to learn, difficult to master"

Thank you Occulto. My sentiment exactly.

I have been around since RT with a pause somewhere around 3rd edition. I am also in the camp of vets which share no special love for 2nd ed. I enjoyed it a lot back then, but looking back I can see flaws in the core system itself and in particular with the supplemental and surporting rules, be they Codeci or weapon stats. IMO, some of the flaws was based on a ill-conceived design strategy (assuming there was one at all - reading some of the 2nd stuff I could easily believe there wasn't one!), wherein one of the faults was the love of complexity for its own sake. This echoes the beliefs of some of the posters here, who believes that complexity=realism=better and more mature game. I disagree wholeheartedly.

While not a great fan of 3rd (don't get me started on the pure idiocy of the Eldar Codex :mad:), it was better than 2nd because it focused on creating a cohesive balanced game rather than simulating the universe of 40K with emphasis on the "realism" of the individual model/unit. 4th was better yet, as some of the bad decisions were rooted out. I look very much forward to reading 5th, as I like a lot what I am hearing about it.

It's all fine that the OP and many other posters want a more complex and more "simulating" 40K based on a smaller scale conflict. I could be tempted to try such a system too. But please could we avoid some of the condescension? It does not help your (often very good and valid) points to label other people "kiddies", "fanbois" or whatever degrading terms you fancy.

TheMav80
22-07-2008, 08:17
Just wanted to jump in to chime in on the "targeting kiddies" thing. Someone mentioned that kids are the ones going to join up. Older folks aren't going to suddenly decide to play.

Hard to directly refute that unless you give specific age brackets, but...I'm 27 (28 in two months) now and started playing 2 years ago. Two other friends of mine are the same.

Honestly, I never could have played 40K while a teenager or while in school. I never could have afforded this hobby back then. Building one 1500-2000 pt army would have taken me forever. Especially considering other hobbies. I spent money on RPGs (still do) and video games (still do) for example.

If GW is focusing on 14 year olds to fuel their business, it is no wonder they are in financial trouble. It is the late 20/early 30 crowd they should target. We've got the disposable income.

Occulto
22-07-2008, 08:23
I'm really hoping that one day I'll be able to discover these complexities and subtleties of which you speak. So far, neither myself nor any of the friends I know in real life have managed to find any in 40k. I guess it's all just over our heads.

Ah. I've wounded your pride it seems. ;)

Narrative campaigns are the best way. Especially when you're put in the situation where you can win the battle but in doing so, lose the war. Throws different considerations how you use your army.

"Yes, it would be easy for me to win this game by suicidally sending my Chaplain into that combat, but since he's the one carrying the vital info, I'll have to think of something else. Otherwise, I'm 1000 points down in the next game. Hmmm... now I know why my opponent put those guys there as bait. Sneaky bastard has been thinking about our next game since deployment."

A little more complex than racking up VPs or fighting over generic objectives.

On an army level - veterans can make "unusable" armies work. Ever been trounced by a Kroot merc list because your opponent knew what he was doing? (Ever seen a 10 year old use a Kroot merc list?)

But I guess, that's not subtle or complex enough for those who miss their Virus Grenades, Overwatch, kick turns and individual damage tables.

borithan
22-07-2008, 08:35
Hard to directly refute that unless you give specific age brackets, but...I'm 27 (28 in two months) now and started playing 2 years ago. Two other friends of mine are the same.
Well, along with the other guy who said something familiar, it seems I am wrong, though I don't have all the information.



Honestly, I never could have played 40K while a teenager or while in school. I never could have afforded this hobby back then. Building one 1500-2000 pt army would have taken me forever. Especially considering other hobbies. I spent money on RPGs (still do) and video games (still do) for example.
If you played RPGs I would consider you sort of already in the fold. Video games are a wider interest, but RPGs are a generally minority interest, and frankly the two world of wargamers and RPGers overlap (no matter how much certain extreme elements of both camps would like to refute that). Someone who was never introduced to that world when they were younger, is, in my opinion, unlikely to enter into it in their mid 20s onwards.



If GW is focusing on 14 year olds to fuel their business, it is no wonder they are in financial trouble. It is the late 20/early 30 crowd they should target. We've got the disposable income.
The answer is: Rich Parents. I have easily seen a mother or father go into the shop with their kids and drop 80 on models. And the amount of pocket money I have seen/heard some children get is quite spectacular (in my opinion). One person in my secondary school was being given 5 a day. True, they were expected to spend it on lunch, but if they were not totally obscene in what they ate, they could save up quite a bit across a month... not that I think that particular person spent it on 40k stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others who did.

RevEv
22-07-2008, 09:21
Wahay - another Trench-Raider Thread

I've been playing since 2nd edition so have some memory of that system, most particularly the first game I ever played where HtH took me over an hour to work out against my equally naive adversary. I was also working in stores when there was no 40K between 2nd and 3rd edition (I played a lot of Necromunda). I have also played a lot of 3rd and 4th edition, so quite a pedigree (ie no NOOB).

I am quite excited by the 5th rule set. It has introduced some really superb ideas (the rethink on template weapons, transport vehicles being able to pick up non parent units, run for example), and reintroduced TLOS (I never got the rules in 4th so played TLOS anyway). Most of all it has addressed some of the abuse issues, in particular allocating wounds in squads (ie every model is vulnerable, so valuable models can't hide in squads any more) and kept the best parts of the previous editions (Cover Saves, I have never got AS modifiers, common movement figures)

OK, it's not perfect, but it's a darn sight better than 4th. Some of the more competitive 'beardy' players (now that is showing my age) may not some of the rules tweaks that try to eliminate rules abuse.

What 5th Edition does try to do is reintroduce fun to the game - it's simpler, plays faster, and seems fresher than 4th ever did.

Is it as good as 2nd? Who knows? Only time will tell.

Ronin_eX
22-07-2008, 09:39
Question time:

How many people still regularly play 2nd edition?

If you enjoy 2nd edition, but don't play regularly, why not?

I tend to play vanilla 2nd (i.e. sans house rules) on a fairly regular basis. 4th hasn't been pulled out in months while 5th will likely get a couple of plays out of me before I move back (just not the system I wanted really). 2nd is far from perfect but in my experience it's a damn site better than most of their core games currently are. It was made using the same design philosophies that brought us Blood Bowl and Epic and it has that spark of creativity and ingenuity I simply don't get from the current rules.

If given the choice I don't think I'd pull any other of the later editions out if I didn't need to from time to time.

As for complicated I can finish a game of 2nd in a little over an hour flat (tend to get two games and dinner in on any given games night of four hours or so). The game was meant for a 1000-2000 scale with 3000 being something of the upper limit of play. Though clunky the HtH system never took over long for resolution (certainly never an hour and usually less than 5 minutes...). I personally never got "complicated" out of it. A little outdated by newer games (but this is a weakness with almost all GW systems) and a bit clunky (again something almost all GW games suffer from) but it was intuitive and fairly simple at the usual point limits.

But, as always, what do I know? I only play the thing after all. :p

Askari
22-07-2008, 10:24
I'm glad it's not like 2nd Edition. It would mean taking years to re-do every codex again to fit with the new-style rules and no-one would play until their favourite army was released.

:P

But still, 2nd Edition, while detailed, complex and sometimes just plain fun took far too long. And Hero-hammer was prevalent.

TLOS in the new Edition is certainly an improvement over 4th, though perhaps not as much as should be.
I'm glad they didn't put ASM in, it's really no more realistic, perhaps less so, than AP.
Tougher vehicles, better blasts that don't just disappear if they miss, and running are also nice additions.

Simply put, 5th Edition is for faster, flowing games [though I think slightly slower than 4th... somehow] while trying to eliminate some of the more unrealistic aspects of 4th.

shabbadoo
22-07-2008, 10:37
In 5e I see many corrections to things that were way out of whack. I guess that is dumbing down then.

I see special abilities toned down such that they give only slight advantages now rather than massive ones as before. I guess that is dumbing down too.

With a greater level of equanimity between basic abilities and special abilities within the game, as well as basic movement, in-game conflicts tend to be less one-sided and more challenging back and forth, which requires more thought of the players.

Some of the changes are so smart that they've gone around the whole smart/dumb scale to the point that they actually have ended up being dumb(i.e. the "they are so smart that they are dumb" rule), and therefore are dumbed down. That of course is simply proof of the dumbing down.

Most of the statements I see about things being dumbed down tend to be pretty dumbed down themselves. Is 5e better than every other game system? Probably not. Is it better than 3e/4e? Without a doubt.

That is just my dumbed down opinion though. :p

IJW
22-07-2008, 11:16
That is just my dumbed down opinion though. :p
:D

I've played every version of 40k, from about a month after RT came out in the UK so that'd be October '87, eek!
I didn't play much 3rd ed because that's about the time I took a break from tabletop wargaming (coincidence, it wasn't because of 3rd ed).

So far, I like every version I've played, for assorted reasons. I'll not put down 2nd ed because there's a lot of it I really liked. Similarly, I'll not put down 5th ed because there's a lot of it I really like. :angel:

Phazael
22-07-2008, 15:53
The new edition did several things right, but it did a lot of things wrong:

Pros-
No more clipping in CC-
This needed to be fixed, and it was. Combined with the removal of consolidating it works to make the futuristic game actually revolve around shooting.

Adoption of Apocalypse Vehicle Damage Table-
Best move ever concieved. The only issue I have is that skimmers should have simply gotten a flat -1 on the table with no other bonuses (you can still penetrate them) and still dying if immobilized. The rest of the revised table is perfect.

Removal of Rhino Scope/clipping shooting-
I know it seems dumb that if model A is the only visable model, that the rest of the unit is vulnerable to shooting losses, but it completely eliminates Rhino Scope tactics, and their like.

Revised CC break rules-
MEQs (and SoBs) won't be hurt by this, but it makes sense and helps horde armies out in an area they need it.

Clean and consolidated Universal Special Rules and Assault Sections-
This is the most clearly worded and understandable ruleset GW has ever put out, in this regard.

Cons-
True LOS-
First off, gamers rarely agree about anything, so injecting subjective judgement into the game is a recipe for failure. It didn't work in 3rd, and it won't work any better now. The near complete removal of LOS blocking area terrain also makes it really hard to play finesse armies and requires terrain that is not easy to game with. Area terrain was not perfect, but it had the least room for argument. More importantly, it didn't make the modeling affect the rules, which certainly is the case now. They think they are going to encourage more modeling, but in fact the opposite is going to happen. Finally, the new LOS rules bring us back to the 2nd edition days of He who goes first wins.

Defensive Weapon Str Reduction-
Tanks that cannot move any faster than guys on foot is plain ridiculous, any way you cut it. This rule should have been tossed, completely. A tank should be able to fire its entire arsenal when moving 6" (12" for fast) and defensive weaponry should simply afford you the option of targetting a different unit with that armament than the main gun. Vehicles are enough of a liability, as it stands, without restricting their fire.

Cover for everyone-
This is just plain stupid and encourages silly arangements of troops to abuse it. I know they want to make the bolter the best weapon in 40k, but this is not they way to go about it. All it does is make Ork Shooting armies and Nidzilla virtually invincible.

Scenarios-
Who the hell thought these up and what were they thinking? The fact that they put the VP system in the back of the book tells me that they know they screwed the pooch on this one, on some level. Here is a novel idea. Assign a unit strength for every model in the game. Infantry, US3. Vehicles with AV12 or Monsters with T7 or less get US5. Terminators and Tau Crisis Suits get US2. Vehicles with AV13 or more and Monsters with T8 or more get US10. The side with the most unit strength within 6" of the objective claims it. This way, Eldar can't fly in a gunless falcon on turn 6 and claim the objective. This way three marines from a combat squad hiding behind some reckage can't contest a table corner where there are 30 ork boys hanging around. Fantasy does things by Unit Strength, there is no reason 40k can't as well. As it is, the book scenarios are absurdly poorly balanced.

As for some of the things people touched on about 2nd....

Armor Save Mods could work in a simplified form. Example:
Light Anti Personel weapons (Shotguns, frag missles, Las Weapons, Death Spinners, Vibro Cannons) +1 save (1 always fails)
Standard Anti Personel and CC Weapons (Bolters, Shurican Cats, Pulse Rifles, Scatter Lasers, Multi Lasers, most weapons) No save modifiers.
Heavy Anti Personal (Heavy Volters, Shurican Cannons, Burst Cannons, Big Shootas, Choppas, non power fist vehicle mele) -1 save
Plasma/Power Weaponry (Plasma Rifles, Rail Rifles, Star Cannons, Power Weapons, Battle Cannons) -3 Save
Melta/Fist Weaponry (Power Fists, Monsterous Creatures, Melta Guns, Rail Cannons, Las Cannons, Wraith Cannons, D-Cannons, Demolisher Cannons) No Save

Under that system, the Terminator Crux save would be completely unnessecary and you would see some use of medium weapons, instead of Bolters or Death builds that are so prevalent now. It would also allow units with armor of some kind to have some chance against certain weapons. Carapace Armor guys would still have a 6+ against heavy bolters, MEQs would still get a 6+ against plasma/Power weapons, and Terminators would still be getting a 5+ save against plasma and power weapons like they do now. It wouldn't be very hard to implement at all.

insaniak
22-07-2008, 22:22
True LOS-
First off, gamers rarely agree about anything, so injecting subjective judgement into the game is a recipe for failure. It didn't work in 3rd, and it won't work any better now.

And yet again, true LOS is not an addition. It's been in every version of the game since 2nd. (Can't speak for RT, as I didn't play it, but fairly sure it used the same system)

In fact, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ed books all use the same 'model's eye view' phrase when explaining LOS.

It was only Area Terrain and close combats that used a different system in 4th.




The near complete removal of LOS blocking area terrain also makes it really hard to play finesse armies and requires terrain that is not easy to game with.

Area terrain can still block LOS. The problem there isn't specifically with the rules, but simply with people who put a single tree on a base and called it a forest.




Finally, the new LOS rules bring us back to the 2nd edition days of He who goes first wins.

This is one of the most wide-spread fallacies in 40K history.

The complaints about first turn being an automatic win (which have occured in every edition of the game I've played) have come mainly from people either playing on tables that had too much open space, or people thinking that they shoudn't be penalised for setting up their entire army standing around in the open.

Ozendorph
22-07-2008, 23:29
Area terrain can still block LOS. The problem there isn't specifically with the rules, but simply with people who put a single tree on a base and called it a forest.

No, the problem is with having to lean over and fuss about several times each game to see if my models can see or be seen between a couple of trees, rocks, or what have you. Which guys can see? Can the heavy weapon guy see? It turns out this is a total pain in the butt when dealing with units of 20-30 men...especially when (after all this talk about TLOS) squad members don't block each other's view, so you can't even really trust the almighty laser pointer.

And what if you want to create a forest section that will effectively block LOS? Since you need to have lots of trees, rocks, and other bits in order to block LOS to any real degree, making a section that you can actually move models through without a steady hand and a pair of chopsticks is going to be a real bear. And just when you think you've managed to make a LOS-blocking forest section, somebody is going to say, "I think my firewarrior can see your guy's arm sticking out behind that bush if you get down here and look just right."

It's much, much easier to say "that's a forest" and be done with it.

insaniak
22-07-2008, 23:35
No, the problem is with having to lean over and fuss about several times each game to see if my models can see or be seen between a couple of trees, rocks, or what have you. Which guys can see? Can the heavy weapon guy see? It turns out this is a total pain in the butt when dealing with units of 20-30 men...especially when (after all this talk about TLOS) squad members don't block each other's view, so you can't even really trust the almighty laser pointer.

But that's the way the game has worked for 20 years now...

4th edition added in the abstract rules for area terrain, but everything else in 4th, and all LOS in previous editions, has worked by bending over and having a look from the model's level.



And what if you want to create a forest section that will effectively block LOS?

Make it a little bigger than the usual 3" to 6" diameter 'forests' that seem to be the accepted norm, and you should have plenty of room to include LOS-blocking features while still leaving room for models.

Unplugged
22-07-2008, 23:52
I played from 2nd until today, and recently had a look in the old rulebooks and my Codex (vanilla Marines), and - boy, what a convoluted mess that all was. 2nd had some nice Ideas, a little more Detail, and it completely broke down because of some 400 extra-rules, special Charactes and Psykers that made normal troops basically useless. Sure, it was fun to light guys on fire, roll 9 shots for a assault cannon or teleport somebody away, but the stuff I remember most was how utterly useless normal troops were. Oh, there's a 10 man marine squad? Here, use this exarch, he'll kill them of. Some Guardians? Cast Vortex, *poof*, they are gone. What, you fired 13.475 boltgun shots at that khorne terminator? Too bad, now he assaults you anyway... Some players I knew didn't even bother to fire all their bolters, because "they wont do anything anyway".

I really liked 3rd and even more 4th in the way that my marines actually did something. Suddenly, a rhino full of beakies could mean serious trouble, and that is a good thing.

Sure they are not perfect systems, sure some stuff was funnier in 2nd, but for the life of me I have no idea why anyone would play a single turn of 2nd edition 40K unless forced at gunpoint. Shows how diverse peoples tastes are, I guess.

DhaosAndy
23-07-2008, 02:09
Actually RT, 2nd Ed. & Warhammer (to this day) use an abstraction, 2" in, 2" out for forests.

Ozendorph
23-07-2008, 02:11
But that's the way the game has worked for 20 years now...

4th edition added in the abstract rules for area terrain, but everything else in 4th, and all LOS in previous editions, has worked by bending over and having a look from the model's level.

Make it a little bigger than the usual 3" to 6" diameter 'forests' that seem to be the accepted norm, and you should have plenty of room to include LOS-blocking features while still leaving room for models.


Right, but just because it's a "4th edition thing" doesn't make it wrong (though I'm sure you'll find some that believe otherwise). imho the 4th ed area terrain rules simply worked better. Less stooping and squinting, more playing. We use a few rather large forest sections in our games, and (up till now) it's been nice having a balance of trees and open areas on them to allow even multiple squads to move through while still providing cover for units moving behind (and looking rather nice besides).

insaniak
23-07-2008, 02:25
Less stooping and squinting, more playing.

Only if you were using a lot of area terrain.



We use a few rather large forest sections in our games, and (up till now) it's been nice having a balance of trees and open areas on them to allow even multiple squads to move through while still providing cover for units moving behind (and looking rather nice besides).

The units behind still get cover.

Plastic Rat
23-07-2008, 03:22
I played from 2nd until today, and recently had a look in the old rulebooks and my Codex (vanilla Marines), and - boy, what a convoluted mess that all was. 2nd had some nice Ideas, a little more Detail, and it completely broke down because of some 400 extra-rules, special Charactes and Psykers that made normal troops basically useless. Sure, it was fun to light guys on fire, roll 9 shots for a assault cannon or teleport somebody away, but the stuff I remember most was how utterly useless normal troops were. Oh, there's a 10 man marine squad? Here, use this exarch, he'll kill them of. Some Guardians? Cast Vortex, *poof*, they are gone. What, you fired 13.475 boltgun shots at that khorne terminator? Too bad, now he assaults you anyway... Some players I knew didn't even bother to fire all their bolters, because "they wont do anything anyway".

Hmm... dunno, I guess the people I play with are different. We never fielded ridiculously powerful stuff. There was always some sort of unwritten agreement to keep the game balance and fun.

We took out the Virus outbreak card and other virus related stuff. Limited use of Vortex grenades and so forth.

Fun game. At least we have options in it. Tactics that count for something. Then again, I guess my tastes differ.



Armor Save Mods could work in a simplified form. Example:
Light Anti Personel weapons (Shotguns, frag missles, Las Weapons, Death Spinners, Vibro Cannons) +1 save (1 always fails)
Standard Anti Personel and CC Weapons (Bolters, Shurican Cats, Pulse Rifles, Scatter Lasers, Multi Lasers, most weapons) No save modifiers.
Heavy Anti Personal (Heavy Volters, Shurican Cannons, Burst Cannons, Big Shootas, Choppas, non power fist vehicle mele) -1 save
Plasma/Power Weaponry (Plasma Rifles, Rail Rifles, Star Cannons, Power Weapons, Battle Cannons) -3 Save
Melta/Fist Weaponry (Power Fists, Monsterous Creatures, Melta Guns, Rail Cannons, Las Cannons, Wraith Cannons, D-Cannons, Demolisher Cannons) No Save

Great points. Exactly what I was thinking.

Now be prepared for somebody who has completely ignored your post, or simply read the first 2 sentences to come in and tell you that 2nd edition 'suxored' and took days to play a game and they're really happy we don't have to play like that anymore and 5th edition just rocks and you're missing the subtle nuances and complexities of it's tactics.

Ozendorph
23-07-2008, 03:26
Only if you were using a lot of area terrain.

We do. No "planet bowling ball" setups here, and for the last year or so we play almost exclusively apocalypse (so blocking LOS is key and checking LOS "at model's eye view" is even less fun than it would be in smaller game.



The units behind still get cover.

I get that.

I understand the rules, I just happen to think it was simpler and better in the last edition. I think GW's assertion that bending over and squinting a lot is somehow both fun and engaging is false. Obviously you disagree, which is perfectly okay.

Like I said earlier in this very thread, there are bits I like from each of the editions (except 3rd, which nearly drove me from the hobby completely). Basically, if they kept everything as per 5th, except:

1. Area terrain blocks LOS beyond
2. loosen up vehicle shooting to make them more fun
3. To Hit modifiers
4. Saving Throw Modifiers
5. 2nd Ed Psychic phase
6. 2nd Ed style mission matchups
7. Good codices with plenty of options

And I'd be a happy monkey. Of course other folks would be just as upset as I'd be thrilled, but that's life for ya.

zanotam
23-07-2008, 03:43
Well you see, If you flip a two upside down, it kinda looks like a 5. It's also got a similar name, with both ending with edition and beginning with WARHAMMER 40,000. So really, the only difference is one has second in the middle and the other has fifth in the middle.

WARHAMMER 40,000 FIFTH EDITION
WARHAMMER 40,000 SECOND EDITION

See, they're VERY similar.

WARHAMMER 40K 5 EDITION
WARHAMMER 40K 2 EDITION
They're like almost identical for goodness sakes. I mean, you'd have to be arguing semantics to tell me that they're really that much of a difference, and you don't want to argue semantics with me, you won't like me when I'm arguing semantics. (Or was that when I was angry, can't seem to remember right now.)

Occulto
23-07-2008, 03:54
Armor Save Mods could work in a simplified form. Example:
Light Anti Personel weapons (Shotguns, frag missles, Las Weapons, Death Spinners, Vibro Cannons) +1 save (1 always fails)

That's really turning lasguns into flashlights!

IG vs SM - that's a lot of 2+ saves. :p


It wouldn't be very hard to implement at all.

Besides recosting most weapons and therefore all the codices. :eyebrows:

insaniak
23-07-2008, 03:56
We do. No "planet bowling ball" setups here,

The point is that 4th edition used almost exactly the same LOS rules, and required just as much bending down and looking, for anyone who wasn't just filling the table with area terrain exclusively. From the games I played through 4th edition, there was usually a heck of a lot more regular terrain than area terrain.

So 5th really isn't that much of a change. Area Terrain, as I saw it, was always supposed to be a minor category, rather than taking over as the sole terrain type as some players used it.

Phyros
23-07-2008, 04:35
I really hate the innacurate exaggerations of 2nd that people claimed to have happened.

TheDarkFlame
23-07-2008, 06:27
My problems with 5th is the level of change for changes sake. Let's look at "True" LOS. I can see one member of the squad while the rest are hidden behind a wall. My squad pours fire onto poor trooper number 4 that was foolishly behind a window. Suddenly Trooper 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 die. Luckily for trooper number 4 he had a grenade launcher. How is that "True" anything? Fifth is just as abstract they just tell you that it isn't.

Cover saves. A unit that is mixed with a different unit gets a coversave. There is not really a valid reason and it is counter intuitive. Here is an example (that I didn't draw) showing a Land Raider shooting at two Tau squads and each receive a cover save because you don't have "True" LOS to the majority of either unit that doesn't require you to fire between two members of a different squad.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d112/r555ung/Internet%20Play/example2and3.jpg

Here is another example. If you shoot between two trees in the same forest you get a save. If you shoot between two trees in two different forests you get none.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f20/lordmalektheredknight/separate.jpg

Again it is counter intuitive.

How about 3 marines with bolters can hold an objective but 10 marines with 4 heavy bolters cannot? How about the fact that jump marines painted red can hold an objective and ones that are painted blue cannot?

As far as movement, I can move 6" and then run 1" to 6" (random) and I am stuck doing nothing else. Otherwise I can move 6" find time to take aim and shoot and then assault 6" and still be able to hit you with my sword.

I have found that 2nd edition with all of its flaws is still a much more intuitive rule set. I can use modern tactics. Perhaps it is a failing on my part for not seeing the beauty of Napoleonic warfare with chainsaws but those rule sets tend to be cleaner than what has been presented. Even WHFB is cleaner.

As I said in the beginning though even I am guilty of making the comparison. I wasn't truly referring to gameplay as much as wacky feel though.

What you've said is all true, and rather annoying.

I have easily seen a mother or father go into the shop with their kids and drop 80 on models. And the amount of pocket money I have seen/heard some children get is quite spectacular (in my opinion). One person in my secondary school was being given 5 a day. True, they were expected to spend it on lunch, but if they were not totally obscene in what they ate, they could save up quite a bit across a month... not that I think that particular person spent it on 40k stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others who did.

You have got to be kidding. Please say that you're not serious!

junglesnake
23-07-2008, 07:05
True line of sight is also already open for abuse. I walked into my local GW store the other day and a staff member was discussing with a friend but non-staffer the following idea:

Using units in pairs do this (unit x and unit o)

xx oo
ooo xxx

Both of the above units are obscured by each other and so both offer each other cover saves. And when set up properly both units can also fire to maximum efficiency.

It has to be said that this is just one thing that I have found about the true line of sight thing that I do not like. I am not saying it doesn't work, just that it is a bit of a throw back to 2nd and yet they seem to have spent about the same amount of time as they did back then thinking about it!

There are two things I do miss and I do think there is scope for in 5th ed is hidden rules and the most basic of assault rules - you have to be able to see (or maybe detect) a unit at the beginning of your turn to be able to assault it.

Donnie Darko
23-07-2008, 07:20
My biggest problem is that 40k has never been able to scale at all.
There is no justification to have a rule set that only works at a very limited model count.

GW can create very clean and enjoyable rules (see Fantasy), but refuse to make the changes required for 40k to bring it back into line as a viable product. Fantasy is just as fun at 250 points, as it is at 25 000 points. This is because the basis of the game is founded on tactical movement and a rock paper scissors approach (infantry, calvary, shooting).

40k is fundamentally a bar fight in the far future. They tried to move the rules in a direction that allows company level battles to be fought on a 4x6 table. The problem is that the rules as written are designed for a 12x18 table. Units move too far too quickly. I can handle everything else except the fact that the movement rules (exasperated by the universal run) allow infantry to close in two turns and get stuck in.

The rules need to be re-written from the ground up with the clear goal of making a rock paper scissors system with a strong tactical movement. This also means that all the codexes need to be re-written. This is a huge effort, but in business, when you discover a flaw in your core product, you don't just hope the consumer is stupid enough to keep buying, you take the write down and fix the issue.

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
23-07-2008, 07:26
My biggest problem is that 40k has never been able to scale at all.....<cut post>

That's the most sense I've read all thread.

Bathfinder
23-07-2008, 08:53
The rules need to be re-written from the ground up with the clear goal of making a rock paper scissors system with a strong tactical movement. This also means that all the codexes need to be re-written. This is a huge effort, but in business, when you discover a flaw in your core product, you don't just hope the consumer is stupid enough to keep buying, you take the write down and fix the issue.

Used microsoft lately? ;)

borithan
23-07-2008, 08:57
And yet again, true LOS is not an addition. It's been in every version of the game since 2nd. (Can't speak for RT, as I didn't play it, but fairly sure it used the same system)
No, as said, it used abstract system of 2" into a forest, and if I remember regarding other bits of terrain it was "if you are directly behind a wall it does not black line of sight from your unit", but if one unit was not directly beside they often blocked line of sight. Interestingly this was in a game that was more of a skirmish game than 40k is now, and skirmish games are often the games which tend to have more like true line of sight, as the ground scale fits more directly with the figures.



Area terrain can still block LOS. The problem there isn't specifically with the rules, but simply with people who put a single tree on a base and called it a forest.
What about 3 trees on a base, like the Games Workshop forests?



Make it a little bigger than the usual 3" to 6" diameter 'forests' that seem to be the accepted norm, and you should have plenty of room to include LOS-blocking features while still leaving room for models.
What is wrong about a 3" - 6" diameter forest? These are representations of what is meant to be on the board, not actually to scale modeling of the terrain.





I have easily seen a mother or father go into the shop with their kids and drop 80 on models. And the amount of pocket money I have seen/heard some children get is quite spectacular (in my opinion). One person in my secondary school was being given 5 a day. True, they were expected to spend it on lunch, but if they were not totally obscene in what they ate, they could save up quite a bit across a month... not that I think that particular person spent it on 40K stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were others who did.
You have got to be kidding. Please say that you're not serious!
Well... 80 might be at the top end of what I have seen, but when I was in for the launch of 5th edition there was a mother in with their kid, and she was buying 2-4 squad boxes (cannot remember the actual number. Mix of Space Marines and Tyranids), another box (I think it was a Hive Tyrant), and a few blisters. She almost bought more, as she was asking the staff of what else was needed, and they explained something that I think was needed for a legal army, and she turned to the kid and asked "Do shall we get that now?" or soemthing like that, but after the rather blank response from her kid, decided against it. It was a minimum of 50 worth of stuff, and it could have easily been more, and I have seen similar things before.

And not only that. If you have a kid hooked, they will probably ask for lots of GW stuff for Christmas and Birthdays (I have seen plenty of bemused grandparents, aunts and uncles etc, approaching the staff with vague questions about what they need to get, or handing bits of paper with the name of something on it). If you get an adult, they may feel a bit odd asking friends and family for toy soldiers for their presents. I am sure they do it, but no where near as commonly as a child.

TheDarkFlame
23-07-2008, 09:05
Wow. I'm 17, so I'm still young enough to get away with having stuff bought for me on birthdays & etc. I've never had that much bought for me outside of a birthday present! Hell, even my presents aren't that costly. I am so annoyed that people get such an advantage for having parents with money, and other people are just left struggling. I haven't had a single new model in months, and these kids get stuff bought for them all the time?

RFT
23-07-2008, 09:18
That's hardly a GW issue.

There will always be richer and poorer people, and there will always be kids who get more money given to / spent on them than others.

Azulthar
23-07-2008, 09:29
I actually wonder if 5th is more like 2nd than 4th. If the codices are going the way of "more USR, less army specific rules" like many people are claiming, the game could end up even more generic ("streamlined") than 4th.

Slaaneshi Slave
23-07-2008, 10:18
Wow. I'm 17, so I'm still young enough to get away with having stuff bought for me on birthdays & etc. I've never had that much bought for me outside of a birthday present! Hell, even my presents aren't that costly. I am so annoyed that people get such an advantage for having parents with money, and other people are just left struggling. I haven't had a single new model in months, and these kids get stuff bought for them all the time?

Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.

Dranthar
23-07-2008, 10:19
Well I played 2nd edition for a good year or so before it was discontinued and I have to say, it was a broken, broken game.To name a few;

-Armour save modifiers made almost all armour that wasn't unmodified or rolled on a 2D6useless.
-Strategy Cards (while cool) were poorly balanced
-The Psychic phase was clunky
-The close combat phase was fiddly
-The Virus Grenade/Outbreak. Seriously, WTF?
-Characters and tanks were the only things worth taking (most other infantry just sucked)
-If you didn't want to get mauled by your opponents psyker, you NEEDED a level 4 psyker of your own (only one though - having another offered only a very limited benefit IIRC)
-Transports were death traps for the infantry inside.
-The Eldar were several shades of Broken.

I really don't understand why some people yearn for a return to 2nd edition. It was a more detailed game, sure, but it was also pretty poorly balanced. 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, despite their simplified rules, are much fairer systems.

I have my reservations about 5th edition, sure, but IMO it's still a better game than 2nd edition was.

Eckshale
23-07-2008, 10:26
Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.

500 is kinda a lot for working part time when your 17, at least compared to what i make working fulltime atm.

Aaron
23-07-2008, 10:48
Sure they are not perfect systems, sure some stuff was funnier in 2nd, but for the life of me I have no idea why anyone would play a single turn of 2nd edition 40K unless forced at gunpoint. Shows how diverse peoples tastes are, I guess.

Most of the problems with 2nd edition were in the Codexes, not the main rules. It's very easy to take out the main offenders - remove vortex/virus grenades, limit pyskers, limit wargear and even reduce stat lines.

What I remember of 2nd edition was how much fun it was. Watching a Imperial Guard squad try to frag my Lictor only to miss horrible and kill themselves. Having a character ping about the battlefield as his Displacer Field activated. Racing forward 25" with my Leman Russ, all guns blazing (and, of course, totally missing).

I think it's interesting that GW removed all of the datafaxes and cards from 40K. It seems like most modern tabletop wargames are reintroducing cards to keep track of damage and special rules.
.

Azulthar
23-07-2008, 11:05
I have my reservations about 5th edition, sure, but IMO it's still a better game than 2nd edition was.
A better game? Perhaps. But 2nd edition was a better experience :p

I'm biased, I'm also a roleplayer: I don't mind balance-breaking fluff rules that much.

mattjgilbert
23-07-2008, 11:21
The point is that 4th edition used almost exactly the same LOS rules, and required just as much bending down and looking, for anyone who wasn't just filling the table with area terrain exclusively. From the games I played through 4th edition, there was usually a heck of a lot more regular terrain than area terrain.

So 5th really isn't that much of a change. Area Terrain, as I saw it, was always supposed to be a minor category, rather than taking over as the sole terrain type as some players used it.I think this post highlights the issues I see with the "amazing" changes in 5th ed. TLOS! wow!... as insaniak correctly says, this existing in 4th ed too for almost all things. It's only really AT which now works in a different way. The number of people who seem to have played 4th ed wrong is truly staggering.

Another classic example of not knowing the 4th ed rules is the GW and B&C publications saying that "partials are gone! flamers are now more effective!". :wtf: There were no partials for template weapons in 4th ed anyway!

Don't get me wrong, I like 5th ed and the way it plays (as I've liked most editions of 40K right back to RT). It's incorrect comparisons that annoy me :)

t-tauri
23-07-2008, 11:28
Several posts removed as spam. Any more Python quotes will bring moderator action.

That includes Spanish Inquisition references.

Kargush
23-07-2008, 12:04
Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.

First, you have to get a job. Some places, that's a tad difficult, unless you have an education. Especially if you're working to get that education as well.


Well I played 2nd edition for a good year or so before it was discontinued and I have to say, it was a broken, broken game.To name a few;

-Armour save modifiers made almost all armour that wasn't unmodified or rolled on a 2D6useless.
-Strategy Cards (while cool) were poorly balanced
-The Psychic phase was clunky
-The close combat phase was fiddly
-The Virus Grenade/Outbreak. Seriously, WTF?
-Characters and tanks were the only things worth taking (most other infantry just sucked)
-If you didn't want to get mauled by your opponents psyker, you NEEDED a level 4 psyker of your own (only one though - having another offered only a very limited benefit IIRC)
-Transports were death traps for the infantry inside.
-The Eldar were several shades of Broken.

I really don't understand why some people yearn for a return to 2nd edition. It was a more detailed game, sure, but it was also pretty poorly balanced. 3rd, 4th and 5th edition, despite their simplified rules, are much fairer systems.

I have my reservations about 5th edition, sure, but IMO it's still a better game than 2nd edition was.


Limit the level on the psykers. Ban certain bits of wargear by house rules. Don't play Eldar. Don't use transports.

So maybe the game was a little fiddly. Whilst I've never played the game myself, the only drawback I've heard from pals who've played the game is the Assault phase, which took ages, what with parrying, fumbles, et al.

Varath- Lord Impaler
23-07-2008, 12:25
Limit the level on the psykers. Ban certain bits of wargear by house rules. Don't play Eldar. Don't use transports.

So your saying that second edition is a balanced game if you ignore half the rules?

That sorta says its a broken game...
\

Templar Ben
23-07-2008, 12:43
Wow. I'm 17, so I'm still young enough to get away with having stuff bought for me on birthdays & etc. I've never had that much bought for me outside of a birthday present! Hell, even my presents aren't that costly. I am so annoyed that people get such an advantage for having parents with money, and other people are just left struggling. I haven't had a single new model in months, and these kids get stuff bought for them all the time?


Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.


500 is kinda a lot for working part time when your 17, at least compared to what i make working fulltime atm.

These guys are hiring. (http://www.army.mod.uk/)

Would it be too much for most players to change movement to be 6 in for humans, 8 for nids, 4 for Necrons or something similar? I presume there was some reason to bring all movement to the same level but I don't know what that was.

insaniak
23-07-2008, 12:44
No, as said, it used abstract system of 2" into a forest,...

I actually said 'since' 2nd ed... 3rd and 4th edition both used true LOS as well.




What is wrong about a 3" - 6" diameter forest?

It's too small, and looks silly as a forest.

Use it as a small clump of trees, sure. But a forest? No, sorry, too silly.

IJW
23-07-2008, 12:47
Would it be too much for most players to change movement to be 6 in for humans, 8 for nids, 4 for Necrons or something similar? I presume there was some reason to bring all movement to the same level but I don't know what that was.
That would actually be more variation than there was in 2nd ed - humans were 4", Eldar were 5" and Nids were 5" or 6" depending on the model.

Aaron
23-07-2008, 12:48
So your saying that second edition is a balanced game if you ignore half the rules?

That sorta says its a broken game...
\

I think that's the point though - you're not ignoring half the rules, you're ignoring some of the unit options. That's totally different.

It's akin to playing 40K in 40 Minutes or Apocalypse using 4th/5th edition. When you play these variants, there's no fundamental changes to the core rules. The only difference is in what you can take.

Mostly, it was the army lists that were broken under 2nd edition. Warhammer Fantasy at the time was little better. I remember my Chaos Lord with Hydra Blade/Helm of Many Eyes and riding a Griffin being able to win games single handedly. And yet, Warhammer Fantasy's core rules have stayed pretty much static ever since. The developers decided that it was the army books that needed tightening up. And guess what - it's a much better game thanks to their decisions.

I'd agree that the mobile coffin rule/assault phase could do with some polishing though.

Malachai
23-07-2008, 12:50
Well, I think that outside kids, it is unlikely there are many other social groups to attract. Wargaming is a bit of a minority interest, and I do not know anyone who started playing when they were an adult. It isn't really something that most people think about, and I cannot really imagine someone going "You know what? I am going to start playing with toy soldiers even though I have never done this before" in their mid 30s or something.

The only demographic they have much chance selling to are gamers, or kids. Gamers they have attracted already (though they could try attracting some more, or maybe make a better job retaining them), but if they want to expand, they have to sell to a new market, which is only likely to be kids.


Wasn't that what they referred to their "orange phase"? I started playing in Third edition, but I had seen some second edition stuff, and yes, it did seem a bit... colourful.


Why do people keep suggesting this as a reason that it isn't aimed at kids? The kind of kids that I think people are referring to (ie low to mid teens) I personally find actually like really dark things. And the ones who I have seen make complaints that they are trying to make 40k darker, or deny the slightly more hopeful elements on this site, tend to be players who have been playing for a very long time (it might simply be nostalgia, but they are not kids).

I started gaming at the age of 33.
That's 2 years ago.
A mate of mine who is 29 started about the same time as i did.

Eckshale
23-07-2008, 13:07
These guys are hiring. (http://www.army.mod.uk/)

Would it be too much for most players to change movement to be 6 in for humans, 8 for nids, 4 for Necrons or something similar? I presume there was some reason to bring all movement to the same level but I don't know what that was.



Yeah, i'll apply to the british army.. i'm sure i would get accepted

Yorrik's_Uncle
23-07-2008, 14:02
Mission cards. Very good idea, basically 5 VPs for accomplishing the mission. The really good thing was your opponent never knew what your mission was until you showed them the card at the end... it could be "Dawn Raid" to get to their deployment zone or "Assassins" to kill their army leader.

It is one of the things I'd miss and something I'd love to re introduce.
My group still uses some of them for Apocalypse. Not all of the cards work well in the current game, but for the most part they can be a fun distraction for an extra objective point; we assign each card one objective point that is available above and beyond the regular objectives in Apocalypse. We've also created some of our own cards to throw into the mix every now and then as well. That kind of house rule addition works very well in Apoc games, and keeps it fresh.

Unplugged
23-07-2008, 14:08
Most of the problems with 2nd edition were in the Codexes, not the main rules. It's very easy to take out the main offenders - remove vortex/virus grenades, limit pyskers, limit wargear and even reduce stat lines.

What I remember of 2nd edition was how much fun it was. Watching a Imperial Guard squad try to frag my Lictor only to miss horrible and kill themselves. Having a character ping about the battlefield as his Displacer Field activated. Racing forward 25" with my Leman Russ, all guns blazing (and, of course, totally missing).

Then we probably have different expectations from the game or just different definitions of fun (no sarcasm here).

Sure, in 2nd, more wacky things happened, but it felt like this things outweighted solid gameplay. There was very little actual regular fighting going on, troops were more like the NYPD watching a fight between Spiderman and some villain - they could get into the action, but it won't end good. ;)

The balance between strange (if funny) stuff and core troops or what you want to call it was way off, and some of the detail was completely useless. Why have a unique damage chart for every vehicle? Takes time to find it, read the description and find out what actually happens ("The Shot hits the driver in the eye, blinding him. In Panic, he steps on the gas and drives the vehicle against a rock. This collision sets of a explosion in the fuel cells, destroying the vehicle" or anything silly as that). A lot of the added detail was wasted, because it didnt really have any influence on the game. Sure, i could light some orks on fire with a flamer pistol in my assault squad, but most of the burning orks died, and there was an assault after that that anyway, and after the CC the burning guys were dead or stopped burning. It just described what was happening with more depth, but it really didnt add much to the gameplay.

I like the streamlined versions we have now a lot more, and yes, I still think 3rd was an improvement over 2nd, just because it didnt feel as slow and cumbersome as 2nd did. YMMV, of course.

Kenzaburo
23-07-2008, 14:11
Whoa, someone just mentioned, that although 2nd edition might have been a bit on the broken side, it was way more fluffy. The 2nd edition codices were great and fluffy, I give you that. What my space wolves or marines in general were able to do on the battlefield was anything but fluffy, that's sure.
My common enemies were CSM and Eldar. You see, as was mentioned, Eldar were beyond broken, a lot of their rules were just not fair. CSM had gear that, despite being older, was a lot more accurate and devastating. My Terminators would have killed for the machine cannon instead of the old assault cannon. And the fluff clearly said, that the assault cannon was an improvement on the concept of the CSM version. Sure thing, probably was an improvement like Windows Vista and was built by M$.

Seriously, we all know marines are supposed the pinnacle of humanity's soldiers, same as power armour was supposed to be the top line of body armour available. But a normal tac squad got ripped to shreds in no time, power armour not offering that much protection to a hail of those shuriken crap normal eldar guardians were vomiting. And bolters weren't even half as deadly as they are today.

So to me, when I first started playing 4th ed(skipped 3rd, was too angered by the demise of 2nd ;) ) I finally saw a marine army play as it was supposed to be according to fluff. Same goes for most other armies. And that makes playing the newer editions far more enjoyable for me.

Still I miss some of the older fluffy parts and was fairly annoyed when I realized that 5th ed SM codex won't have the armoury, meaning no artificer armour, adamantine mantle, chapter relic and the likes for my ICs. But you can't have all, I suppose.

Cheers,
Kenza

Kargush
23-07-2008, 14:24
So your saying that second edition is a balanced game if you ignore half the rules?

That sorta says its a broken game...
\

So, then the current edition is broken too. Since I don't use transports(except for my Eldar and Dark Eldar), use no psykers(again, except for my Eldar), and generally don't upgrade my DA with meltabombs. :P

Aaron
23-07-2008, 14:58
Sure, in 2nd, more wacky things happened, but it felt like this things outweighted solid gameplay. There was very little actual regular fighting going on, troops were more like the NYPD watching a fight between Spiderman and some villain - they could get into the action, but it won't end good. ;)

Again, this is a flaw in the army lists rather than the rules. Your average Space Marine squad had so many more tactical options back during 2nd edition - fire Bolter, fire Bolt Pistol, throw Frag, go onto overwatch, go into hiding...


The balance between strange (if funny) stuff and core troops or what you want to call it was way off, and some of the detail was completely useless.

I agree that it's a matter of perspective. All the extra detail helped tell a story. If you came at the game from that angle then it all helped add enjoyment to the game. If you were playing 40K as a purely competitive game (and honestly don't mean to be derogatory when I use that term) then it just bogged the game down.


Seriously, we all know marines are supposed the pinnacle of humanity's soldiers, same as power armour was supposed to be the top line of body armour available. But a normal tac squad got ripped to shreds in no time, power armour not offering that much protection to a hail of those shuriken crap normal eldar guardians were vomiting. And bolters weren't even half as deadly as they are today.

The best way to protect against getting hurt is not to get hit in the first place. That was the mantra of 2nd edition. A Space Marine in hard cover was a very resilient foe.

But Eldar Guardians with Shuriken Catapults were incredibly broken. Thankfully there weren't any plastic models for them around at the time and so you didn't see them that often.

borithan
23-07-2008, 15:35
I started gaming at the age of 33.
That's 2 years ago.
A mate of mine who is 29 started about the same time as i did.
As I have said earlier, it looks like I may be wrong, but first:
before you first played 40k had you played any wargames, roleplaying games, or more obscure fantasy/sci-fi boardgames (Ie, things beyond the normal, which I would define as Cluedo, Monopoly and similar things?)?



I actually said 'since' 2nd ed... 3rd and 4th edition both used true LOS as well.
Well, you said you didn't know, so I said what did happen. And made a point that it was more of a skirmish game than 40k was, yet had more abstraction (at least in this sense) than 40k does now.



It's too small, and looks silly as a forest.
Use it as a small clump of trees, sure. But a forest? No, sorry, too silly.
We don't know the ground scale. That means we do not know how big that clump of trees is. It could only be a clump of trees, or it could be tens, or even hundreds, of metres thick. Rogue Trader had a 1" = 2 metres groundscale (which was daft, as you could only see through 4 metres of woods, and the weapons ranges were ridiculously short), but since then there has been no explicit ground scale, and the scales of the battles suggest it is far smaller (or is it larger? Whatever it means to have more metres being represented by the same real life distance). My personal opinion is that it is something between 1"=4 - 8 metres, but that is just my personal preference. That makes a 3" forest 12 to 24 metres thick. Depending on the thickness of the forest I could see the upper end of that blocking line of sight, and certainly making it impractical to shoot at anybody.

Templar Ben
23-07-2008, 15:48
Yeah, i'll apply to the british army.. i'm sure i would get accepted

You were not complaining about money, TheDarkFlame was. You were just saying 500 pounds was a lot for part time and he could do TA.

I think everyone should do a tour but I am biased. If we had more people here with military experience we would have more threads about how important overwatch is. ;)


That would actually be more variation than there was in 2nd ed - humans were 4", Eldar were 5" and Nids were 5" or 6" depending on the model.

Those numbers were just pulled out of an orifice. Do you know why they were dropped? Surely it wasn't simply to remove one chart. It is cleaner than fleet.

Unplugged
23-07-2008, 17:18
Again, this is a flaw in the army lists rather than the rules. Your average Space Marine squad had so many more tactical options back during 2nd edition - fire Bolter, fire Bolt Pistol, throw Frag, go onto overwatch, go into hiding...

Okay, but army lists, or if they are legal or not, are provided by the rules. So there will always be some kind of creep towards cheesy but legal stuff. Or, to say it in a different way, i consider armylists or possible armies to be part of the rules. If broken lists are possible, the rules are broken from my point of view, as there is alway somebody who will use them.



I agree that it's a matter of perspective. All the extra detail helped tell a story. If you came at the game from that angle then it all helped add enjoyment to the game. If you were playing 40K as a purely competitive game (and honestly don't mean to be derogatory when I use that term) then it just bogged the game down.


I wouldnt consider myself a competitive player, but i dont really see 40k as a RPG with a really story - it's more a armchair general sandbox - kind of game. Sure, in good games you can imagine how that Chaplain jumped screaming from the roof and stopped the tau suits, but in general i see 40k as some kind of chess-with-dice. No play-to-win-at-all-costs, either.



But Eldar Guardians with Shuriken Catapults were incredibly broken. Thankfully there weren't any plastic models for them around at the time and so you didn't see them that often.

My main opponent in 2nd had lots of them. Together with warp spiders. And Exarchs of doom. I won some... what, 5% of the games or so. I wonder if i dislike 2nd because of that...^^
Orks were fun, though.

Starchild
23-07-2008, 17:37
My main opponent in 2nd had lots of them. Together with warp spiders. And Exarchs of doom. I won some... what, 5% of the games or so.

5%? Incredible! How did you pull that off? :angel:


Sure, in 2nd, more wacky things happened, but it felt like this things outweighted solid gameplay. There was very little actual regular fighting going on, troops were more like the NYPD watching a fight between Spiderman and some villain - they could get into the action, but it won't end good.

That was one of the major points behind 3rd edition. Characters went from 2nd edition Total Domination to being reasonably powerful. My most-hated 2nd ed. character: Eldar Exarch with Turn Aside Blow, Fast Shot, Maugetar, Displacer Field, Melta Bombs, Vortex Grenade, and Warp Spider Jump Generator. :cheese:

Slaaneshi Slave
23-07-2008, 17:50
These guys are hiring. (http://www.army.mod.uk/)


A bit late for that... I do agree that everybody should do a tour, just like I think that everybody should ride a motorbike before they can drive a car. :p

I think 40k would be a lot better with to hit modifiers, instead of coversaves, it worked in 40k before, it works in WFB, so why did they change it? If cover saves worked like WFB Ward saves, then there would be a lot more point in a 6+ or 5+ save, instead of only the 4+ and 3+ being of concern, as we have now.

Noserenda
23-07-2008, 17:52
[QUOTE=Aaron;2803616]Again, this is a flaw in the army lists rather than the rules. Your average Space Marine squad had so many more tactical options back during 2nd edition - fire Bolter, fire Bolt Pistol, throw Frag, go onto overwatch, go into hiding...
[quote]

I think his point was that most of these options were pointless, the squad had such a low relative power level that outside of its heavy weapon its actions were really just time fillers :(

baphomael
23-07-2008, 18:14
Question time:

How many people still regularly play 2nd edition?

If you enjoy 2nd edition, but don't play regularly, why not?

Find me some local 2nd Ed players, and I will. Sadly, most of the local players came into the hobby *after* 2nd ed was replaced. I'd also play rogue trader too, if I could find opponents.




Anyways, I've enjoyed (to a lesser or greater degree) many editions of 40k, from its primordial beginnings to 5th ed. All have aspects to their rules mechanic that I like, and others I dont.

I still have very fond memories of 2nd ed and pine over not having any 2nd ed opponents. Nevertheless, this doesnt mean I despise 5th edition with venemous hatred. I still enjoy 40k as it is now, but I do miss a lot of aspects of 2nd edition that, I feel, made a lot of sense (even if, as some did, they didnt work too well in game). Overwatch, sneaking about, mission cards, skimmer 'pop-up' attacks, cover doing more than just being ablative armour, 'to hit' modifiers and armour modifiers.

Yet, I believe these could be nicely incorporated into the current rules. I've been interested to see what we, as a community, could come up with. I'm sure we could come up with a 'best of both worlds'.

de Selby
23-07-2008, 18:28
Not going to get into 2nd versus 5th debate.



Do you know why they were dropped? Surely it wasn't simply to remove one chart. It is cleaner than fleet.

I don't think fleet was planned when they put the 3rd ed. rules together. I presume that everything was shoehorned into 6" increments to fit with the 12" rapid fire range. So with a 6" move and 6" charge, you have to weather a round of rapid fire before you reach the enemy lines. Any more and the enemy never gets to rapid fire, any less and he potentially gets two chances.

ankara halla
23-07-2008, 18:35
Again, this is a flaw in the army lists rather than the rules. Your average Space Marine squad had so many more tactical options back during 2nd edition - fire Bolter, fire Bolt Pistol, throw Frag, go onto overwatch, go into hiding...


I think his point was that most of these options were pointless, the squad had such a low relative power level that outside of its heavy weapon its actions were really just time fillers :(

Yeah, it sure was a good thing they fixed that with the following editions... :angel:

*I* think his point was that there really were options, some more powerful than others, but at least when in a pinch you had a variety of tactics to choose from.

As to the rules themselfs, the rules are the rules are the rules you find in the rulebook. 2nd edition had this pinned down pretty good, I have yet to find anyone anywhere that has ever said that 2nd edition was perfect, all such claims have been strawmans by people who have preffered the later editions to the previous ones, but the rules themself don't wear any shame at all compared to anything what has come since.

Yes, 2nd ed. suffered from heavy codex creep, but tell that to the early 3rd ed. codexes... nearly every one of them was more powerful than the previous! Codex creep itself isn't a problem that was inherently native to 2nd ed.

And yes, 2nd. ed had a bunch of other cluncky stuff in it too, nobody nowhere has ever said anything different, but to say the following editions have inherently been improvments becouse they changed a bunch of cluncky stuff to another bunch of cluncky stuff is simply ridicilous, as is to claim that 2nd ed. is as inherently superioir becouse it's cluncky stuff was different and workable... thought that I think is an important point in itself. At least I personally, in this is purely anecdotal, *never* played a game in RT/2nd ed. where me and my opponent didn't before game agree how all the cluncky stuff would be handled, it was as natural part of the game as was setting up the terrain and rolling for first turn.

In the later editions, it's all about rules lawyering yourself around any issues you've studied in arguments you've read in threads on sites such as Warseer. Now this day and age, it's unforgivable for GW not to release timely FAQ's and errata, but even so the very mentality towards casual gaming has changed hugely. Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse... it's a personal issue alltogether.

However, I see this as a big gap between a lot of the 2nd ed. haters and lovers. 2nd ed. definately falls short in todays competitive climate, 3rd ed+ is simply unable to offer the same gaming experience as 2nd ed. did, due to it's very nature.

"So houserule it" all the 3rd ed+ lovers say, "and it'll be as fun a game as you make it!". Yeah, like that didn't held true to RT and 2nd edition as well.

DhaosAndy
23-07-2008, 18:38
OT I know, but I was told that fleet went in to stop the whinging about marines being as fast as Eldar :evilgrin:

2nd Ed. My CSM won 2 games against my youngest's eldar and my tzeentch stealer cult and IG never won a game, even against the eldest's space puppies. So 5% vs eldar is pretty good. ;)

Templar Ben
23-07-2008, 18:43
I don't think fleet was planned when they put the 3rd ed. rules together. I presume that everything was shoehorned into 6" increments to fit with the 12" rapid fire range. So with a 6" move and 6" charge, you have to weather a round of rapid fire before you reach the enemy lines. Any more and the enemy never gets to rapid fire, any less and he potentially gets two chances.

That is plausible.

Brother Ranz
23-07-2008, 19:57
I bailled on 40K when 3rd came about. I took a look again when 4th came out. I played fantasy from its debut in the States until abut y2k. I dabbled in others and eventually stopped playing GW altogether. I played Chronopia, Leviathan, Warzone, Clan War, Battlestorm, Confrontation, Vor...spent the last 5 years obsessing aobut Warmachine and the last year collecting Infinity. The grass is always greener and every company that claims not be GW, eventually tries to be GW and you'll hate the same things aobut them that some of you hate about GW.

I played these other games because of the dumbing down of GW, because Man O War got scrapped, because Squats got dumped... I'm back because I have always loved the GW fluff the best. It's something I've loved since the Regan Administration. Warmachine was neat for a while, but they have declared that PAGE FIVE!!!!!! was not really a mission statement, but rather "Warmachine Matt" instead of "Privateer Press Matt." The rules are combo driven and that was cool before there were so many. It's like playing a CCG where you must assemble and paint your cards. And with that are the stupid combos like a voodoo pirate who makes his way onto the field each time the Harbinger of Menoth takes the field or a dwarven pirate who looks like Napoleon constantly popping up. Add to that the plastic collectable godzilla game they are putting out and the entire foundation of their cred crumbles for some of us.

So 5th edition is what it is. I think it is far better than 4th or 3rd and I'm at an age where I have a 13 year old and a 9 year old chomping at the bit to play. I will make certain that they steer clear of the primrose path of indy games and all of the pain in the ass it is to get a play group together and so on up until the company dies or does something irretrievibly stupid. We are playing 5th edition tonight with my Brother and his kids. We will see how IG can hold up against Chaos and the kids can repeat the battle 100 times via Dawn of War over the next week. The game matters less than the opponent. I've said this for years, even while off trying to conquer Rokugan, Aarklash or the Maelstrom: If you sre not playing GW games, you are just playing with yourself.

insaniak
23-07-2008, 22:18
We don't know the ground scale. That means we do not know how big that clump of trees is. It could only be a clump of trees, or it could be tens, or even hundreds, of metres thick.

You don't need a stated ground scale when the terrain is WYSIWYG...

A forest hundreds of metres thick is going to have to be a little more than 3" across.

IJW
23-07-2008, 22:28
You don't need a stated ground scale when the terrain is WYSIWYG...

A forest hundreds of metres thick is going to have to be a little more than 3" across.
Especially when you have Land Raiders or Monoliths on the table...

borithan
23-07-2008, 22:54
You don't need a stated ground scale when the terrain is WYSIWYG...
Which it isn't. They say that the base of an areas terrain piece is likely to be covered in undergrowth in the case of a forest, which is why a unit within the area terrain piece gets an cover save, even if there is nothing physically between the model and the guy shooting them. Same goes for "shooting between two objects of an area terrain piece". Whats in the way there? The figure may be to far away to dart behind the cover of the trees on each side (the justification given for the "if any of the model is covered it gets a save" rule), yet it still gets a save. The terrain is not WYSIWYG, which is one of the reasons why TLOS is slightly non-sensical (and frankly, if it were some of the terrain items would make little sense. Why have all the recommended tree clumps have exactly three trees on them? Why does such a small area of trees have so much undergrowth that it impedes shooting to the other side?).



A forest hundreds of metres thick is going to have to be a little more than 3" across.
Personally don't think it is hundreds of metres thick, but no, it doesn't have to be more than 3" across.



Especially when you have Land Raiders or Monoliths on the table...
Models, even large vehicle models, are usualy to the scale of the figures, rather than to the ground scale. I have at least two rules sets where the soldiers (in the recommended scale) end up being the equivalent of 10 metres tall according to the ground scale, and all the vehicles are to the figure scale, so are easily 20m plus. True, not as bad as would be the case with a land raider if 3" were equivalent to hundreds of metres (and in one of the rule sets they do get around this my measuring all distances to the centre of the model), but wargames always have odditities, and the relative scale of the figures, vehicles and terrain, which is normally to the same scale as well, and the ground scale, is often one of them.

DhaosAndy
23-07-2008, 23:13
Actually the ground scale is different from the vertical scale, you can tell from the weapon ranges (and the fact was explicitlt stated in RT). Consider an autogun, range 24", this equates directly with an assault rifle, effective range about 400 yrds or 1200'. Consider an IG trooper carrying it height 1" (approx). The vertical scale is 1" = 1yrd, the horizontal scale is 1" = 16yrds (approx). If the horizontal and vertical scales were 1:1 the autogun would have a range of 400" !!

borithan
23-07-2008, 23:24
Actually the ground scale is different from the vertical scale, you can tell from the weapon ranges (and the fact was explicitlt stated in RT). Consider an autogun, range 24", this equates directly with an assault rifle, effective range about 400 yrds or 1200'.
Well... actually they said in the Rogue Trader that the ground (ie horizontal) scale was 1"=2m. They just said that the really short ranges of weapons were justified by game balance, and the fact that the game was meant to play situations where people would be using the weapons at extremely close range, where they were likely to hit... in fact they gave optional rules for giving weapons ranges... 10(?) times as long as the one stated in the book, but they had not very good chance of hitting (I think it is a 6 on a d6 followed by a normal to hit roll).

And also there is the fact that though an assault rifle may be able to shoot 400 metres, the range might not represent their real full potential, but the distance when the weapons tend to become deadly (ie have a good chance of hitting, are able to put a good rate of accurate fire down, etc). Thats why I favour a roughly 1"=4-8 metres scale, as that gives a range of about 24" equalling roughly 100-200 metres. While the weapons could easily be used at longer ranges, the range represents the deadly range.

As 40k has moved away from skirmishing the 1:1 ratio between ground and figure scale has become even less justifiable, and why I suspect they no longer give an explicit ground scale.

insaniak
23-07-2008, 23:30
this equates directly with an assault rifle, effective range about 400 yrds or 1200'.

That's the maximum effective range of a standard assault rifle (while most will shoot further than that, the chances of hitting anything start getting slimmer past that range)... and you'll generally only hit anything at that range if you have plenty of time to find a stable firing position and a good chance to aim properly.

Generally, firefights take place at a much, much shorter range, and those involved are a little rushed... That's the sort of battle that 40K is aiming to recreate.

Slaaneshi Slave
23-07-2008, 23:31
An assault rifle is most deadly between about 75-150m. At these ranges you can hit the eye of a needle, and not have your vision tunneled too badly by the sight.

borithan
23-07-2008, 23:36
That's the maximum effective range of a standard assault rifle (while most will shoot further than that, the chances of hitting anything start getting slimmer past that range)... and you'll generally only hit anything at that range if you have plenty of time to find a stable firing position and a good chance to aim properly.

Generally, firefights take place at a much, much shorter range, and those involved are a little rushed... That's the sort of battle that 40K is aiming to recreate.
Yes, which is why I don't think 24" is 400 metres. However, weapons like that become deadly at ranges greater than 50 metres. Thats why I think 4-8metres per inch is a good scale, as that gives a range of roughly 100-200 metres for small arms, and 50-100 for the really deadly short range fire fights (ie rapid fire). Urban combat alone it is probably best to consider anything at shorter ranges than that part of the close combat phase, rather than part of the shooting phase.

The Clairvoyant
23-07-2008, 23:47
they said the same sort of thing about ranges in 2nd ed. I seem to remember half a quote about the weapon ranges being done for game balance "otherwise you'd have to play every game in a car park"

2nd edition certainly had its redeeming features. Having used the 'black codex' to write a chaos army and having my bloodthirster shot to pieces on the first turn by a landraider as all he had was a 3+ armour save (vs 2x twin-linked lascannons = 4 hits, each inflicting 2D6 wounds!), it was great to see codex chaos bring in summoning points (are they still around?) and then summon your greater daemon when you're actually in a position to do something with it
Though admittedly, some daemons were much easier to raise than others. The bloodthirster was always the easiest. You need 10 summoning points and khorne summon points were gained by inflicting hits in close combat (with double points if done by someone with a mark of khorne) - send your uber khorne marked chaos lord into combat with a gretchin, beat the crap out of it (afterall, you had WS10 because of the daemon weapon) and gain a bazillion khorne summon points. POOF here comes mr bloodthirster and a million of his bloodletter mates :D

Yes, eldar were 'broken'. I remember facing the swooping hawk exarch with webspinners and a bright lance.
I also remember the exarch with the wailing doom (i think thats what it was - jain zaars throwing weapon anyway) standing next to a farseer with Guide psychic power. Result: every enemy model within 48" gets hit. Twice.

But there were also things in later editions you would never consider doing in 2nd ed like putting troops *inside* tanks. That was a sure way to lose a load of points!

all this said, i loved 2nd and i played it when 3rd came out because 3rd seemed such a disgrace. Now i'm returning to 40k and i rather like the new rules and i like the codexes.
But i wouldn't compare 2nd with 5th. The two games have completely different basic rules.


The other thing that has cropped up a lot is the idea of simple rules being a 'dumbed down' or 'tacticless' version.
Has anyone else played the boardgames by GW such as Horus Heresy or Doom of the Eldar?
Both these games have very simple game mechanics but the tactics involved in them (especially horus heresy) are truly headache-inducing. When a friend of mine play this game, it takes us hours, we both end up needing the Nurofen Turbo but we have a fantastic tactical game.

borithan
24-07-2008, 00:12
I also remember the exarch with the wailing doom (i think thats what it was - jain zaars throwing weapon anyway) standing next to a farseer with Guide psychic power. Result: every enemy model within 48" gets hit. Twice.

Yerch... nasty, and sounds totally overpowered.

O&G'sRule
24-07-2008, 00:30
the cover save rather than hitting mods make sense simply as you don't want too many rules being the same in both systems. I want to feel like I'm playing a different game when I play 40k instead of fantasy. I think they should bring back the old 2nd ed combat system personally to make it feel totally different, but I suppose it was a bit slow

Phyros
24-07-2008, 00:41
I also remember the exarch with the wailing doom (i think thats what it was - jain zaars throwing weapon anyway) standing next to a farseer with Guide psychic power. Result: every enemy model within 48" gets hit. Twice.


I would have argued that one on two key points.

First, it's a thrown weapon and not one that you can "fire" or "shoot".

Second, even if you decide that it is usable, I'm sure your opponent forgot to read the last line on Guide:

The weapon may only fire once so even weapons with sustained fire or multiple shots can only score a single hit using Guide.

And you'd only be able to do it once unless you cast it again.

borithan
24-07-2008, 00:42
the cover save rather than hitting mods make sense simply as you don't want too many rules being the same in both systems.
Now, when the rules don't really make sense or don't really work I can understand, but why should they be different *just* to be different? I think one of the reasons there are similarities for the two sets is so as to make it easier to switch from one to the other. Having unnecessary differences just makes that harder.

Unplugged
24-07-2008, 00:46
5%? Incredible! How did you pull that off? :angel:

To be honest, it was probably more like five times. ;)

But once, only once, the moon was right, and the stars were alligned, and we could hear Cthulhu's screams as he was eating Cultists somewhere in the general direction of Sirius, i slaughtered those pesky pointy eared eldar.

It was a thing of beauty. It was brilliant. It was perfect.

It never happened again. But for that one night, i was... ...

...where was i?

CasperTheGhost
24-07-2008, 00:51
2nd Edition 40k was Garbage

5th edition is flawed but much better.

We will all never be happy.... that is life so just play

How do any of these, and those like them, actually help the discussion. If your trying to start contention then why? At the end of the day you are saying something that has no bearing on the topic other then stating that you are right and others are wrong because they don't agree with you.

There is no point whatsoever.

Trust me you not going to gain "street Cred" from berating someone Online. :rolleyes:


You're also entitled to your (wrong) opinion,

OK thats is the most pointless thing I have read in a long time. You are saying that people are entitled to an opinion. Good it shows you have some sense.

Then you go and say its wrong. Someones Opinion is never really wrong. If they believe cheese is bad then it is to THEM. So don't bother saying that you opinion is right and theirs is wrong. It is pointless.


Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.

Yes they may be old enough to get a job. But being 16 myself it is hard to get one at the moment as the sixth formers left earlier then us and so appilied for all the jobs. And they may have looked for one and couldn't find one. I know I can't. So don't insult someone until you have all the facts.

Of course if they haven't looked for a job well the your right. They are a lazy **** :p





I think everyone should do a tour but I am biased. If we had more people here with military experience we would have more threads about how important overwatch is.

That made me laugh. Though then you would have lots more threads about 5th edition not being realistic enough :rolleyes:


Anyway onto my take of it. Since I Haven't managed to play a game with them yet I have limited experience. However there are a couple of things I have noticed that are awry with it.

The cover save from a front unit annoys me a bit. While they should get a cover save as some shots would hit the front unit I still don't see why the hits aren't taken on the front unit. While it makes some sense in the how las-gun hit power armour its only going to light the marine up a bit it makes no sense if a Las-cannon shot just doesn't hit anything if the back unit passes its cover save. Where did it go!!!!

On the TLoS issue I think its a good idea but no in 40K. It works in LoTR as each model is indivuial and so if it can be seen then ah well you going to become a walking quiver :evilgrin:.

In 40K though I don't see how this work Unless it hits only the models it can see. I don't know this one as so I couldn't comment on the letter of the rules. But then meh.

Though TLoS does make terrain a bit pointless really

Just my thoughts

Casper

Occulto
24-07-2008, 01:05
What about 3 trees on a base, like the Games Workshop forests?

Slightly more plausible now they only provide a cover save rather than blocking LOS completely. :p

MrBigMr
24-07-2008, 01:57
An assault rifle is most deadly between about 75-150m. At these ranges you can hit the eye of a needle, and not have your vision tunneled too badly by the sight.
Have you actually tried it with a stock assault rifle and iron sights?


Being 17 you're old enough to get a job. When I was 17 I was working part time after college, earning 500 a month. Not a great deal now, but at that age it seemed a small fortune. Get off your lazy **** and make your own money instead of whining about others having it given to them.
Everytime you says "when I was your age", God kills a senior citizen.

I do agree that at a young age work pays for everything. But getting a job today isn't as easy as it used to. Today you need all sorts of qualifications and experience. Or you need to know someone who knows someone who has an vacant job. Only time I've gotten a real job was through my dad at one of his friend's construction company. Other than that, forget about it. I've tried applying for various summer jobs, and about all of them have been filled way before the summer.


Yeah, i'll apply to the british army.. i'm sure i would get accepted
That's why it's great to live in a country with conscription. You don't have to prove to them that you can make it, you have to prove to them that you can't.


I think everyone should do a tour
I agree, the army made me the man I am today.
...
*twitch*


If we had more people here with military experience we would have more threads about how important overwatch is.
Well, if you can give me a load down on overwatch we can see about that.

theHandofGork
24-07-2008, 02:01
I agree with the OP that the whole "5th is a return to 2nd" doesn't make sense.

And that's about it.



As for 2nd, well it was a fun game- but so is 5th. If you don't enjoy it, there are lots of other games to play and plenty of people who still play 2nd.

CommisarMolotov
24-07-2008, 02:13
I still miss "overwatch."

Ward.
24-07-2008, 03:24
Several posts removed as spam. Any more Python quotes will bring moderator action.

That includes Spanish Inquisition references.

Are we allowed to sig mods?, because that's going to keep me chuckling for a while now.

To all the people that like the idea of mission cards, there is a very good set hosted/ available on warseer somewhere. Careful though, as I've found once groups start using them that's all they'll do.

EldarBishop
24-07-2008, 03:56
That's not a bad idea. I really liked each player having a different mission. It made a lot more sense then the current missions. Why on earth would a Dark Eldar raiding force try to take and hold an objective (for example)?

Gutlord Grom
24-07-2008, 06:58
How is the AP system broken? An AP 5 bolter gets rid of a Guardsman's save. Seems simple enough. Sorry if I dragged it back up.

zanotam
24-07-2008, 07:13
I don't know why we're still arguing. I thought the whole 'a 5 is really just an upside-down 2' was an obvious argument ender. Personally, I don't see how the AP system is broken, but apparently teh system used to work, not by negating armor saves, but reducing them. There weren't any cover saves either. That makes my pathfinders cry and refuse to fight just thinking about.

Dranthar
24-07-2008, 07:29
A better game? Perhaps. But 2nd edition was a better experience :p

I'm biased, I'm also a roleplayer: I don't mind balance-breaking fluff rules that much.

Now this I can agree on. 2nd edition was great for non-competitive role-playing, since both players aren't going to out of the way to break the game. ;)

ankara halla
24-07-2008, 07:34
There weren't any cover saves either. That makes my pathfinders cry and refuse to fight just thinking about.

If the enemy cannot hit you, the enemy cannot hurt you.

Who needs cover saves when the "to hit" modifier works better and is a heck of a lot more inituitive.

The Clairvoyant
24-07-2008, 07:53
I would have argued that one on two key points.

First, it's a thrown weapon and not one that you can "fire" or "shoot".

Second, even if you decide that it is usable, I'm sure your opponent forgot to read the last line on Guide:

The weapon may only fire once so even weapons with sustained fire or multiple shots can only score a single hit using Guide.

And you'd only be able to do it once unless you cast it again.

oh well. I'm not the arguing type. And besides, it was so long ago that this was used against me, i'd feel a bit silly shouting "oi! you cheated in that game we had in 1995!"

Hrafn
24-07-2008, 08:16
I think everyone should do a tour but I am biased. If we had more people here with military experience we would have more threads about how important overwatch is.

Sure, but that assumes that W40K is a simulation. It isn't, og hopefully doesn't become one. IMO, gameplay goes way ahead of realism. Realism != good gameplay.

But then again, I loathe overwatch as a rules element in the Warhammer system. That's no secret on these boards, I believe :)

Azulthar
24-07-2008, 09:09
Guess I was just lucky that I played 2nd edition mostly against friends and other good players...it certainly wasn't as balanced as 4th+, but for me it never was as outrageous as some people in this thread claim.

It wasn't broken beyond repair. 3rd edition wasn't necessary, it was a new direction chosen by GW. I clearly remember reading the White Dwarf which discussed the new rules. They claimed they wanted modifiers and variable movement gone because it was needlessly complex. Honestly, I can't believe that was the actual reason for dropping the movement stat, there were far better arguments for doing so in their new design.

Proudly stating that at least you would no longer have to divide 4" by 2 when moving through difficult terrain really gave the impression they were dumbing things down for a new audience.

For the record: I do not think 5th edition is any less tactical a game than 2nd. I do miss stuff like hiding and overwatch though :p

borithan
24-07-2008, 09:18
How is the AP system broken? An AP 5 bolter gets rid of a Guardsman's save. Seems simple enough. Sorry if I dragged it back up.
I think it is the all or nothing that results from the system. Something that is so powerful it knifes through carapace armour ends up being as penetrative as a lasgun against power armour. Something that can tear through power armour is again as penetrative as a lasgun against terminator armour. Which makes little sense. Surely if something is better at penetrating carapace armour than another weapon then it should also be better at penetrating power armour (very strange weapon types aside)? An armour modifier would mean that a weapon could be better at penetrating armour than another weapon, regardless of the armour that is being worn, just better armour would still give a better save.

I have heard that overwatch could often result in certain armies/units just sitting still every turn waiting to fire... on both sides.

Sai-Lauren
24-07-2008, 10:09
My view.

Each of the editions has had some things going for it, and somethings that just didn't work (psychics in 2nd, AP in 3rd and on, vehicles in RT).



So a little single digit math was a "pain"? Come on. Even the ADHD kiddies that recent editions of 40K seem to be written for can do a little subtraction. The AP system is one of the biggest broken features of 40K and it's the one the development staff steadfastly refuse to even admit is problematic.

Agreed - and worst of all it is utterly unrealistic.

AP basically says that all your armour is one uniform thickness, except for the weakspots (which are the failed saves) - you either hit a paper-thin weakspot with any weapon, blast through all the armour with a powerful weapon, or the shot gets stopped.

Wheras ASM says that armour is variable in thickness, and hits from more powerful weapons can penetrate different areas, but are still be stopped by the thickest parts. A las gun may only be able to penetrate the joints on power armour, wheras a shuriken catapult or bolter could go through the thigh or forearm armour, a heavy bolter or shuriken cannon could go through everything bar the torso armour and a lascannon or star cannon blasts straight through without stopping to ask directions.



But your point about just about every weapon sporting at least a -1 save modifer is well taken. I used to joke that I ought to be able to save the points on my orks and pay for them unarmoured as the flak armour was pointless. But this problem could have been solved without implimenting the awful AP system.

Agreed. The number of weapons with save modifiers could well have been dropped to make it managable, or even changed the whole system to something closer to the vehicle armour system - which to a point does represent variable armour thickness (working off the top of my head here, but I would say start with toughness and say something like Flak adds 2, Power armour +4, Terminator Armour +6 or something similar - equal the armour and you have a chance of pinning the unit, exceed and it's a normal hit).



If cover and marine armour stacked, we'd see marines gunlining it up left and right.

Actually, it does stack. Most of the time under the AP system it doesn't matter because marines get their 3+ save. Only when they're facing



You can pound the armour of an Abrams with grenades and autocannons with about the same effect as a 9mm pistol (remember, I'm talking about the armour itself, not all the systems, etc.), where as one sabot will pierce it like that.

So that'll be why there was that footage of a knocked out Abrahms in Baghdad a couple of years back then, where someone stuck an RPG through the radiator covers and into the engine block. ;)



Here is were I question if you ever actually played the early editions at all. 2nd edition created a very different scale of game than does true skirmish systems like Necromunda.

Necromunda was based on second edition...



But anyone with any sense still hugs cover to avoid being hit and the posibility of taking that one good solid hit. What they don't do is stand in a line and trade shots with the enemy as marine players are likely to do without negative result under the AP system. The broken AP system is the single biggest factor that has led to the over abundance of MEQ armies.

I refer everyone to the TSOALR "Firepower of the Battle of Gettysburg" strip. :D

(And when I've trawled through the archives there and found the thing, I'll post a link to it).

MrBigMr
24-07-2008, 10:27
I think it is the all or nothing that results from the system. Something that is so powerful it knifes through carapace armour ends up being as penetrative as a lasgun against power armour. Something that can tear through power armour is again as penetrative as a lasgun against terminator armour. Which makes little sense. Surely if something is better at penetrating carapace armour than another weapon then it should also be better at penetrating power armour (very strange weapon types aside)? An armour modifier would mean that a weapon could be better at penetrating armour than another weapon, regardless of the armour that is being worn, just better armour would still give a better save.
Take a 2" thick piece of cast iron. Take a bow and shoot it. Not even a scratch. Take a 9mm and shoot it, same result. Take a 7.62mm assault rifle, shoot it, no effect. A magnum handgun, nothing. Take a .50 anti-material rifle, you go through it like a hot knife through butter.

It doesn't matter how long you shoot it with the other guns, it won't give in. You can pound an modern tank with an RPG for ages and not put much more than a dent into it. Sure, you can screw up the systems, but the actual armour won't mind much. But put a sabot into it and whoom, it flies through.

Terminator armour is not "slightly better" than power armour, it's a whole new game. In fluff a power armour can be pierced by a lasgun, where as a terminator armour can take bolter fire and not even budge. In Storm of Iron a Chaos terminator takes a plasma shot into the chest and it only melts the surface of the armour (hence the 5+ Inv. save, 'cuz they're dead 'ard). Or the fact that in some novel a Titan steps in a terminator and it survives.

You really think something like that's just gonna keel over to some coherent light?

You might have a 9mm that's unable to pierce body armour, where as 5.7mm will go right through it but not pierce a thick steel plate which a .308 will, etc. Doesn't matter how many shots you pour into the steel plate with the 5.7 and 9mm, it won't give in an inch to either.


I have heard that overwatch could often result in certain armies/units just sitting still every turn waiting to fire... on both sides.
I agree, I was just thinking the same thing. It would be better if it was more of a special rule for certain units, rather than something universal. Like Tarantula sentries, Eldar pathfinders and such.


That's not a bad idea. I really liked each player having a different mission. It made a lot more sense then the current missions. Why on earth would a Dark Eldar raiding force try to take and hold an objective (for example)?
They could have a special rule against such things. In the DE codex it states that the DE are never the defender in an Attack-Defend mission.


AP basically says that all your armour is one uniform thickness, except for the weakspots (which are the failed saves) - you either hit a paper-thin weakspot with any weapon, blast through all the armour with a powerful weapon, or the shot gets stopped.
So if I shoot with an anti-tank rifle into the chest of a terminator armour, the bullet seeks out the joints and pierces them because they're weaker? Such feats are presented by special rules (like the AP1 on rangers) and the fact that you can fail your save (it doesn't mean the armour is pierces, just that the bullet happens to navigate around it). The armour itself is not negated, only circumvented.

How is a bolter better and finding weak spots than a lasgun? How does a rail rifle shot hit that sweet spot so much better than a krak grenade from a launcher?

The stronger the weapon, the more saves you have to throw and more likely you are to fail them.


A las gun may only be able to penetrate the joints on power armour
In fluff a lasgun is more than able to pierce power armour's chest.


So that'll be why there was that footage of a knocked out Abrahms in Baghdad a couple of years back then, where someone stuck an RPG through the radiator covers and into the engine block. ;)
If I remember correctly, out of all the Abramses lost today, only a fraction have had their actual armour pierces. The "destroyed" tanks are merely damaged so badly (snapped tracks, blown engine, etc.) that they have been evacuated by the crew and left behind in a hostile territory. But almost all of them have had their armour perfectly intact and the crew safe.

pookie
24-07-2008, 10:42
I don't know why we're still arguing. I thought the whole 'a 5 is really just an upside-down 2' was an obvious argument ender. Personally, I don't see how the AP system is broken, but apparently teh system used to work, not by negating armor saves, but reducing them. There weren't any cover saves either. That makes my pathfinders cry and refuse to fight just thinking about.

the system was very similar to how S works in WHFB, you could entirly negate a armour save or just modify it, and there were cover saves ( which couldnt be modified by the S of a wep ).

for me 5th is only a better version of 4th, which was again an improvement on 3rd, 3rd though was a massive change from 2nd edition, so to draw paralles with 5th/2nd is impossible, its evolved and moved on since then, the only similaraties ive so far found is the name..

Azulthar
24-07-2008, 10:48
I have heard that overwatch could often result in certain armies/units just sitting still every turn waiting to fire... on both sides.
Never happened to me (at least not entire armies). Perhaps a unit was on overwatch several turns (against those damn Eldar jetbike pop-up attacks), but what's wrong with that? Pretty much the same as standing and shooting in your own turn.

Plastic Rat
24-07-2008, 10:52
I have heard that overwatch could often result in certain armies/units just sitting still every turn waiting to fire... on both sides.

Yep, this is most players 'experience' of 2nd edition. They heard something from somebody else who either heard it from another person or supposedly played it and it became gospel.

Never happens to me when we play... in fact I have yet to figure out HOW it can happen when you need to move around the board to get objectives.

Malachai
24-07-2008, 10:53
When a women becomes 40 she's not as hot as when she was in her 20's, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy being with her.

Bloodknight
24-07-2008, 11:09
I never had the overwatch problem, because troops on overwatch hit less often than troops firing in their turn. As an IG player, I just lobbed Griffon shells over the enemy if he did not come out ^^. Also, there were missions to be fulfilled and you cannot do that while hiding.

@Pookie: no cover saves in 2nd. You had either soft cover for a -1 to hit, or hard cover for a -2 to hit, in addition to to-hit modifiers for a fast moving enemy. Hitting a jetbike on full speed in the open was a nice -3.

Eckshale
24-07-2008, 11:15
I agree, the army made me the man I am today.
...
*twitch*


Well, if you can give me a load down on overwatch we can see about that.


Everyone i know that actually did go to the army are just in an endless loop of whining about it..

It's like they think they've actually been to war already

Sai-Lauren
24-07-2008, 11:57
So if I shoot with an anti-tank rifle into the chest of a terminator armour, the bullet seeks out the joints and pierces them because they're weaker? Such feats are presented by special rules (like the AP1 on rangers) and the fact that you can fail your save (it doesn't mean the armour is pierces, just that the bullet happens to navigate around it). The armour itself is not negated, only circumvented.

How is a bolter better and finding weak spots than a lasgun? How does a rail rifle shot hit that sweet spot so much better than a krak grenade from a launcher?

Are you deliberately misconstruing what I said for comic effect? ;)

Of course a shot won't seek out a weak spot. However, if we assume that any part of the target is equally likely to get hit in the confusion of a firefight, then the more powerful a weapon is, the more likely that the spot it hits will have insufficient thickness to withstand the impact. Conversely, the round could hit a point it can penetrate (an armour save), even if had it hit anywhere else, it would have gone through.

An anti-tank rifle shot hitting the chest may not do anything, that same shot into the helmet may disrupt from vital systems and knock the wearer out or concuss them, even if it doesn't penetrate, whilst it hitting the arm may damage the control systems, shatter the bones, dislocate the shoulder and cause massive blood loss.

And the rangers rule and others like it represents a deliberate targeted shot into what they know are the weaker points that they can penetrate - hence AP1. The fact that they don't get it all the time indicates things like the target moving slightly between the shooter seeing the target site they're aiming for and the shot actually hitting them, being obscured through smoke, the shooter having to take a snap shot or being distracted because they're under fire themselves and so on.



The stronger the weapon, the more saves you have to throw and more likely you are to fail them.

:confused:
No, the stronger the weapon, the more likely it is to hit a spot on the armour that it can penetrate. It could still hit a spot that's too tough for it.
Edit: Reworded the above for clarity.
The stronger the weapon, the more likely it is that it can penetrate the spot it hits.

The more shots that hit you, with the hits randomly distributed over you, the more likely it is that one of them hits a weak spot. It might be all of them that do so, but equally, it might be none.

Theoretically, one in three las gun shots that wound a marine should penetrate their armour. How many times have you seen them walk out unscathed from many times that number of wounding hits?



In fluff a lasgun is more than able to pierce power armour's chest.

Only when required to do so by dramatic necessity. ;)



If I remember correctly, out of all the Abramses lost today, only a fraction have had their actual armour pierces. The "destroyed" tanks are merely damaged so badly (snapped tracks, blown engine, etc.) that they have been evacuated by the crew and left behind in a hostile territory. But almost all of them have had their armour perfectly intact and the crew safe.
And someone who's been shot is not necessarily dead - but like that knocked out tank, they've been removed from the immediate combat, and may need considerable resources expended to bring them back into action.

A snapped track is a couple of hours with an engineering team, lifting gear and some tools if you want to bring it straight back into combat, an arm that's had the bones broken because a bullet's just gone through them is a couple of hours with a medic, some splints, bandages and a good dose of pain killers if the soldier needs to come straight back. But for the purposes of the current combat situation where those events have occurred, they're non-combatant until they've been fixed up.

Bathfinder
24-07-2008, 12:28
On the issue of armour modifications.
If I am to like the all-or-nothing ap-system I would like to modify it the following way. You have one number that says what ap will totally penetrate the armour and one that says what the save is if it doesn't penetrate. Then saves would look like 3/3+, 5/3+ etc. and of course inv/4+. Then you can have the thinner armour of guardsmen or guardians be penetrated by bolters, but still give a good save against weaker weapons, frag granades, the type of weapons that weak armour are supposed to protect against. Now it gets wierd because the saves are both crappo and always ignored...

On the other hand, although a system like this might be a better simulation of reality I think ASM gives a better game, and even "feels" more real in the context of the game.

pookie
24-07-2008, 12:33
@Pookie: no cover saves in 2nd. You had either soft cover for a -1 to hit, or hard cover for a -2 to hit, in addition to to-hit modifiers for a fast moving enemy. Hitting a jetbike on full speed in the open was a nice -3.

ah, yes, they gave modifiers, been that long that id forgot that ( going to blame age related Dementia!)

mr_gosh_the_return
24-07-2008, 13:30
You didn't play space marines in 2nd, did you? In retrospect, i hated 2nd ed. Loads of repetition in the codex, and everything was written from the imperium's perspective. Plus they had the best wargear and got new stuff in white dwarf all the time. The leap from 2nd to 3rd ed was the best thing that happened to 40k. If you want story diriven stuff theres inquisitor which is quite similar to 1st ed. Necromunda still uses 2nd ed stuff so play those instead. If you wanna play a game on a war scale (between 30 to 1000 models) the new edition of 40k combines some of the better tactical aspects of 2nd ed with the duynamic gameplay from 4th ed. Its not perfect but its better than it was. Rant over

Azulthar
24-07-2008, 13:37
I think this thread has reached the point of pointlessness.

robertsjf
24-07-2008, 13:49
I thought it had hit pointlessness on post 1.....

MrBigMr
24-07-2008, 14:14
Are you deliberately misconstruing what I said for comic effect? ;)
At that point I have the options to declare myself either an ******* or an idiot... All I can say is that I've never considered myself to be an *******.


Of course a shot won't seek out a weak spot.

the stronger the weapon, the more likely it is to hit a spot on the armour that it can penetrate.
Ok, let me put it this way.
Flak armour. It covers the head, shoulders, upper torso and parts of the leg. You get 5+ save for it. Either you get hit in the armour and save it, or you get hit anywhere else and take damage. Pretty much any gun in the universe should be more than enough to bring a man-sized target down.

Now, lets say we have a lasgun with no AP, hense any type of basic armour is able to provide protection from it, vs. a S4 gun with ASM -1. How does the higher strength of the weapon contribute to the fact that if it missed the armour, the end result is the same in both cases. There are no real "weal spots." It's either hit the armour or not hit it at all. And if the shot isn't enough to pierce the armour, it's not gonna make it weaker either. I don't see how some puny lasgun is good at piercing terminator armour when the damn thing can withstand pretty much anything.

With AP, the failer save presents failer armour save. In other words, the armour fails to do what it was suppose to do: protect the body. This means the shot hits a location that has less armour (I don't think that it makes a damn differense if you shoot a make at the back of his knee with a lasgun or an autocannon, they both are going right through it), or the shot is fashined as such as to pierce the armour completely. Today the power of the shot doesn't mean a thing. You don't see SWAT carrying .50 caliber handguns and .308 assault rifles. They have 9mm pistols and 5.7mm SMGs, that do less damage to the body by pierce armour better. Same with tanks. You can lob few kilograms of TNT at a tank and get nothing, where as a single sharp rod of depleted uranium will go through it like a hot knife through butter.

You don't get a ASM for an autocannon pounding at a MBT. The autocannon is as likely to score a hit on a weak point as a .50 cal machine gun.


Instead of ASM we should implement AP into TLOS. If I can see a part of the model that's not covered with armour, I can negate its armour save. Sucks for guardsmen and catachans. On kroots you have to aim for limbs and head and back, and what about our friendly neighborhood Marines without their helmets... That way all the shots would be far more realistic in seeking out all the weak spots.


Only when required to do so by dramatic necessity. ;)
Not so far by what I've read. Marine armour gets pierced by lasfire quite easily, as well as by mortars and all that, and Marine know to watch themselves. They know to use cover and avoid getting shot at. Only time the armour saves them is when the shot is from an obscured angle. a direct hit will at minimum leave a good dent in the armour.


And someone who's been shot is not necessarily dead - but like that knocked out tank, they've been removed from the immediate combat, and may need considerable resources expended to bring them back into action.
Why do you think the army taught us to shoot the enemy in the belly? And then they teached me to stich guys shot in the belly back up.


A snapped track is a couple of hours with an engineering team, lifting gear and some tools if you want to bring it straight back into combat
Unless it happens to be in a bad neighbourhood, in which case by the time the area is secured and repair teams arrive, the tanks is burned to a crisp, spraypainted and standing on concrete blocks without any treads. Besides, up to a point it'll be cheaper to buy a new tank than repair the old one.


an arm that's had the bones broken because a bullet's just gone through them is a couple of hours with a medic, some splints, bandages and a good dose of pain killers if the soldier needs to come straight back.
Is that so? Should I get my old medic books out? Not only a bullet hit to a bone shatters it into a million tiny pieces, it takes a hell of a lot more than some pain killers and a visit to the company medic to fix it. I can assure you that unless the guy gets serious treatment fast, he's not only losing the limb (assuming the hit was in a limb), but he's likely to die from bleeding (as the bone shards rip his tissue and infection.

You get a bullet through any limb so that the done is shattered and you're out of it for a good while. If it's a rib you're likely to develope pneumothorax and/or the pieces of bone shred your lungs and other internar organs. Which needs more than a bandage and aspirin. Hip? Forget about it. Even a fractured hip is a serious case (resulting in massive internal bleeding), so a shattered one via bullet means you're unlikely to survive even if you were shot 10 feet from a prepaired operating theater.


Reason for a gut shot being so effective is that a) there's little to protect the abdomen and chest apart from some muscle and the ribs that can be cracked quite easily, b) all the vital organs are situated there, c) it's a sensitive area, so pain is great, d) it's a large are and easy to hit and e) there's a great chance for infection and in general a slow death if not treated well, so the downed combatant will suck resources without doing any fighting.

Sai-Lauren
24-07-2008, 17:34
At that point I have the options to declare myself either an ******* or an idiot... All I can say is that I've never considered myself to be an *******.

I'd say you're neither actually. I was going for comic effect myself.;)

*Offers handshake*




Ok, let me put it this way.
Flak armour. It covers the head, shoulders, upper torso and parts of the leg. You get 5+ save for it. Either you get hit in the armour and save it, or you get hit anywhere else and take damage. Pretty much any gun in the universe should be more than enough to bring a man-sized target down.

But, the armour doesn't cover the body evenly, does it. There's elements of it that will provide better protection than others - over the front of the ribs will be most heavily protected, followed by the belly and shoulders (including the upper back), lower back and thighs, then the sides of the body and finally, under the arms, the insides of the thighs, buttocks etc and the zips etc that attach everything and allow the person to wear it, which will probably provide no protection at all.

Some weapons will go through everything, no matter where they hit and every weapon will go through the areas where there's no protection.

The problem is the weapons that can go through the armour over the belly get treated like they're always trying to get through the chest armour, no matter where in the person the shot hits - be it the chest, the back, or the inside of the thigh, wheras the chest armour would be the only thing that could stop it, and the rest of the armour is as much use as the zips.



You don't get a ASM for an autocannon pounding at a MBT. The autocannon is as likely to score a hit on a weak point as a .50 cal machine gun.

No, because there are more and larger weak points for the autocannon than the 50cal.

The 50cal might only be able to take out some of the targetting gear, whilst the autocannon can take out a track, punch through the radiator covers and disable the engine, or damage the turret gear, plus it can also do the same as the 50 cal.



Not so far by what I've read. Marine armour gets pierced by lasfire quite easily, as well as by mortars and all that, and Marine know to watch themselves. They know to use cover and avoid getting shot at. Only time the armour saves them is when the shot is from an obscured angle. a direct hit will at minimum leave a good dent in the armour.

I must read different books to you then.
Most of the time, Marines are walking through lasgun fire with it harmlessly pinging off their chestplates and shoulder pads, almost like they're taking a stroll through a light shower of rain.
It's only things like the ghosts novels that have power armour as vulnerable as you say.



Why do you think the army taught us to shoot the enemy in the belly? And then they teached me to stich guys shot in the belly back up.

Centre of mass and a larger target than trying for a headshot (as you mention further down in your post). Consequently, also more heavily armoured than the extremities.

However, even though you're taught to aim at the torso, how many combat casualties are actually torso hits? How many are headshots, or hits to the limbs?



Is that so? Should I get my old medic books out? Not only a bullet hit to a bone shatters it into a million tiny pieces, it takes a hell of a lot more than some pain killers and a visit to the company medic to fix it. I can assure you that unless the guy gets serious treatment fast, he's not only losing the limb (assuming the hit was in a limb), but he's likely to die from bleeding (as the bone shards rip his tissue and infection.

You get a bullet through any limb so that the done is shattered and you're out of it for a good while. If it's a rib you're likely to develope pneumothorax and/or the pieces of bone shred your lungs and other internar organs. Which needs more than a bandage and aspirin. Hip? Forget about it. Even a fractured hip is a serious case (resulting in massive internal bleeding), so a shattered one via bullet means you're unlikely to survive even if you were shot 10 feet from a prepaired operating theater.


Reason for a gut shot being so effective is that a) there's little to protect the abdomen and chest apart from some muscle and the ribs that can be cracked quite easily, b) all the vital organs are situated there, c) it's a sensitive area, so pain is great, d) it's a large are and easy to hit and e) there's a great chance for infection and in general a slow death if not treated well, so the downed combatant will suck resources without doing any fighting.

I was offering a comparison back to the tank, not an analysis of combat trauma injuries since the battle of Hastings.
Of course, in the ideal situation, the guy with a broken arm will be taken back for medical care, same as the tank will be taken back for a full check over and repairs. But in both cases, that's only if the situation allows, they may be out of contact, unable to get a medevac or repair crew, or under renewed fire, where someone who is only walking wounded may be able to be patched up and help, or the tank becomes a bunker.

It all depends on how you're hit and by what. I'm sure as someone who was trained as a combat medic you've seen some nasty debilitating injuries caused by ricochets or shrapnel, and some nice clean flesh wounds that people could easily fight on through caused by full on hits, as well as the kinds of wounds you'd expect for those types of hits.
And there's been times when people have gone on despite being seriously injured until they eventually collapsed from their wounds.

borithan
24-07-2008, 17:54
Take a 2" thick piece of cast iron. Take a bow and shoot it. Not even a scratch. Take a 9mm and shoot it, same result. Take a 7.62mm assault rifle, shoot it, no effect. A magnum handgun, nothing. Take a .50 anti-material rifle, you go through it like a hot knife through butter.
Body armour is not a 2" plate all over. It usually has varying levels of protection, higher in those areas which are more vital and/or easier to protect. There are cases where a 9mm pistol would do damage to someone in body armour (even if hit on the protective areas), but it is less likely than if hit by a weapon better designed to penetrate the armour. The Save represents the ability of the armour to protect. As a weapon becomes better at penetrating the chance of the armour protecting you is lessened.



You can pound an modern tank with an RPG for ages and not put much more than a dent into it. Sure, you can screw up the systems, but the actual armour won't mind much. But put a sabot into it and whoom, it flies through.
An RPG actually penetrated the turret ring of an Abrahms. Not a likely occurance, but it happened. And anyway, if the tank is put out of action (no matter what reason that is) it would count as "having failed its save". RPGs are likely to need a lot of damage to do it, and are going to be limited to mainly doing in external items, so they give the tank a "better save" than a sabot round. As weapons get more penetrating there become more places that you can hit them that will do damage, and so the save is reduced (like say with an abrham, I believe the rear armour has been penetrated by 25mm cannon fire before. That 25mm cannon would stand no chance against the front, but it probably has greater penetrating power than an RPG, and so has more places it can hurt it... ie, a lower save).



Terminator armour is not "slightly better" than power armour,
I am not sure that is what I actually said.



In Storm of Iron a Chaos terminator takes a plasma shot into the chest and it only melts the surface of the armour (hence the 5+ Inv. save, 'cuz they're dead 'ard).
Hmm... Only melting the surface of the armour doesn't sound like being the benefit of the 5+ save. 5+ sounds to me that more damage would be done, just not enough to kill or incapacitate the wearer. Only melting the surface sounds more like the requirements of the plot (or maybe justifable if it was just a glancing blow).



Or the fact that in some novel a Titan steps in a terminator and it survives.
Hmm... been various different interpretations of that piece, as it was used in a bit about terminators to show how hard the armour was, but then used in a bit about Space Wolves to show how hard Space Wolves were.



You really think something like that's just gonna keel over to some coherent light?
Eh? It wouldnt. Not sure that what my argument was. And anyway, yes it would, if the coherent light was powerful enough. Lasguns? No, lucky hits on weaknesses aside. Lascannon? Yeah, it would.



So if I shoot with an anti-tank rifle into the chest of a terminator armour, the bullet seeks out the joints and pierces them because they're weaker?
No, but as the weapon is more penetrating there will be more spots where the weapon can puncture the armour, reducing the protective quality of the armour. Say with a lasgun about the only chances you have are hitting it on joints or the eye sockets or whatever. However the bolter (or some more powerful weapon that wouldn't just knife through) might be powerful enough to punch through some of the weaker areas that a lasgun would not have been able to do, say some of the bits on the arm armour, or the helmet (or at least a greater proportion of it), or do some damage to the more vulnerable external (or mounted shallowly) systems. That would be rpresented by an inferior save than it got to the lasgun.



How is a bolter better and finding weak spots than a lasgun? How does a rail rifle shot hit that sweet spot so much better than a krak grenade from a launcher?
There are more points on the armour that would be be "weak spots" to a bolter or railgun than against a lasgun.



In fluff a lasgun is more than able to pierce power armour's chest.
What?



If I remember correctly, out of all the Abramses lost today, only a fraction have had their actual armour pierces. The "destroyed" tanks are merely damaged so badly (snapped tracks, blown engine, etc.) that they have been evacuated by the crew and left behind in a hostile territory. But almost all of them have had their armour perfectly intact and the crew safe.
yes, but they still would have failed their armour save (if such things existed in real life). Their armour failed to prevent them being made useless for combat, therefore they failed it.


Ok, let me put it this way.
Flak armour. It covers the head, shoulders, upper torso and parts of the leg. You get 5+ save for it. Either you get hit in the armour and save it, or you get hit anywhere else and take damage.
Yes, or you could be hit in a less protecting area of the armour and so fail your save, as the armour is not able to stop that shot.



Now, lets say we have a lasgun with no AP, hense any type of basic armour is able to provide protection from it, vs. a S4 gun with ASM -1. How does the higher strength of the weapon contribute to the fact that if it missed the armour, the end result is the same in both cases. There are no real "weal spots." It's either hit the armour or not hit it at all.
Personally don't like the Warhammer thing of strength modifies armour saves (ok, it may make sense in warhammer, just doesn't worjk so well for 40k), think individual armour modifiers for every weapon would be better.

And with the more penetrating weapon there will be more areas that the armour cannot protect the hit. With a lasgun, say, we are presuming that the flack armour actually stops it if it hits. However, a bolter say, might get stopped by some sections of the armour, but not other weaker sections of it. As the weapons become more penetrating, the fewer areas there are where the armour is sufficient to protect you, and so it's value is reduced (ie, an ASM).



With AP, the failer save presents failer armour save. In other words, the armour fails to do what it was suppose to do: protect the body.
Yes.



This means the shot hits a location that has less armour (I don't think that it makes a damn differense if you shoot a make at the back of his knee with a lasgun or an autocannon, they both are going right through it),
Yes, but there are almost certainly going to be more areas that an autocannon can punch through than a lasgun. A lasgun might only be able to pierce the true "weak spots", while the autocannon will be able to penetrate areas which the lasgun could not, making the armour less protective against autocannons than against lasguns.



or the shot is fashined as such as to pierce the armour completely. Today the power of the shot doesn't mean a thing.
Thats why I am talking about penetrating power rather than strength.



You don't get a ASM for an autocannon pounding at a MBT. The autocannon is as likely to score a hit on a weak point as a .50 cal machine gun.
No they aren't, as more areas will constitute weak points to the autocannon than to the .50 cal machine gun.



Not so far by what I've read. Marine armour gets pierced by lasfire quite easily,
What? If it did then why do roughly 2/3 of all hits by lasfire get ignored?



as well as by mortars and all that,
Well, I could easily imagine the splinters produced are relatively likely to have some hitting weaker points in the armour, and the concussive force of the blast could be transmitted through the armour.



and Marine know to watch themselves. They know to use cover and avoid getting shot at.
Well, no matter how good your armour is it is always better when your not hit at all.



Only time the armour saves them is when the shot is from an obscured angle.
Eh? What about the pictures of Space Marines being hit by hails of bullets/whatever they are, and them glancing off, direct hit or no. Not that it would be that easy to get a direct hit, with all the curves on those things.



a direct hit will at minimum leave a good dent in the armour.
Well, if you literally mean a dent, that doesn't mean that the armour has failed, unless the wearer gets put out of the fight anyway.

From most of the things I have read power armour near ignores most small arms fire (though obviously you would still avoid being hit, as the less you are hit, the less the chance of a shot finding a weak spot). However, They seemed not to care about hits on the armour itself, excepting from weapons that seemed auto-cannonish and similar (bolters seem to be the one exception in weapons in the small arms territory, but then they are near autocannon weapons anyway).