PDA

View Full Version : playing with old ed. rules



Victomorga
25-10-2008, 16:33
everyone seems to have an opinion on which edition of the 40k rules was / is the best.

so my question is this: do you ever play with old editions of the rules? I've never gotten rid of any of my old 40k books, but I never have gone back to previous editions for a game.

particularly I am thinking of 2nd edition, which seems to have a strong following among gamers who have been playing long enough to have experience with the rule set.

==Me==
25-10-2008, 16:54
I started in 3rd edition, so I really have no desire to go back to 3rd or 4th when I can just play 5th. Actually, I prefer 4th's vehicle shooting rules, VPs, and area terrain was nice and simple. There's nothing about 3rd I miss, except maybe the mini-codices included in the book.

2nd and RT sound interesting, but I don't think anybody around has them :(

Bjorn
25-10-2008, 17:11
No. I started 3rd ed too.

Only game i play the old edition of id D&D, I play the 3.5 rules because 4 is a major R***fest

Warforger
25-10-2008, 17:20
I started in 4th, although I did find alot of older books on the internet just for interest.

If I were to choose, it would be meh, Run is awesome but the FNP rules in 4th were much better as were rending (I play Blood Angels) Consolidating into combat was also awesome when the enemy was all tightly knit together, but LoS was often frustrating and I still didn't fully understand it.

EmperorEternalXIX
25-10-2008, 17:24
The second a book update comes out, I throw away the older version(s).

My reasons are twofold:

1.) I, unlike every other 40k player on the planet, want to support GW's new releases
2.) I am a firm believer that, from an objective point of view, the newer version is almost always better.

The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....

My mother still does not know what Google or Youtube are.

My father insists that an analog TV is "just as good" as an HDTV.

They call my Xbox360 -- and indeed, any video game -- "nintendo."

As I look around I see many older folks (I myself am 26), and as you age you become more set in your ways. There are so many possibilities of WHY a person could be attached to a particular edition, but I find that generally, it is more nostalgia than anything else.

After all, I am sure the first question they ask when they sit down to do an update is "okay, what is lame and needs fixing?" Everything subsequent is a byproduct of that, i.e. the obvious problem of vehicle survivability in 4th was solved but they then had to reduce their effectiveness offensively to avoid "Vehiclehammer," hence 5th vehicle shooting rules.

Ultimately I have not been around long enough to judge, but when these older guys talk about the "awesome stuff" you could do in second edition, I cringe. Ultimately I feel of the editions I know of, 5th seems to feel the most "correct." Hero models are not insanely good, but a cut above; vehicles are hard to kill but cumbersome; transports are safer for the models inside then being behind it; line of sight works well for vertical issues previously not well addressed; and I believe the missions and deployment styles give the game a good variety of variables to keep it interesting.

Desolas
25-10-2008, 17:48
particularly I am thinking of 2nd edition, which seems to have a strong following among gamers who have been playing long enough to have experience with the rule set.

I quit until recently basically because of 2nd edition. In talking about it with my friends we all have stories that basically come down to us talking about how it took an hour per turn, and how it was all champion based. We'd have these huge psyker battles and basically the game stopped being fun and we started throwing large dice at one another.

Turns took so long if you didn't have a side game of solitaire, or Nintendo going it was boring...we'd have two people racing on FZero while another took his turn.

5th edition feels much nicer, it flows more and seems to be more fun....on the other hand, I am 30 now and not 16 so my patience and comprehension of things is a lot higher; that might factor into it..but we're getting in 3 games in a night instead of 1 game taking 3 days..

Remember Vortex grenades? Yeah...that was a game killer...

Victomorga
25-10-2008, 17:58
The second a book update comes out, I throw away the older version(s).

My reasons are twofold:

1.) I, unlike every other 40k player on the planet, want to support GW's new releases
2.) I am a firm believer that, from an objective point of view, the newer version is almost always better.

The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....

My mother still does not know what Google or Youtube are.

My father insists that an analog TV is "just as good" as an HDTV.

They call my Xbox360 -- and indeed, any video game -- "nintendo."

As I look around I see many older folks (I myself am 26), and as you age you become more set in your ways. There are so many possibilities of WHY a person could be attached to a particular edition, but I find that generally, it is more nostalgia than anything else.

After all, I am sure the first question they ask when they sit down to do an update is "okay, what is lame and needs fixing?" Everything subsequent is a byproduct of that, i.e. the obvious problem of vehicle survivability in 4th was solved but they then had to reduce their effectiveness offensively to avoid "Vehiclehammer," hence 5th vehicle shooting rules.

Ultimately I have not been around long enough to judge, but when these older guys talk about the "awesome stuff" you could do in second edition, I cringe. Ultimately I feel of the editions I know of, 5th seems to feel the most "correct." Hero models are not insanely good, but a cut above; vehicles are hard to kill but cumbersome; transports are safer for the models inside then being behind it; line of sight works well for vertical issues previously not well addressed; and I believe the missions and deployment styles give the game a good variety of variables to keep it interesting.

I'm not much older than you, and have been into this game since RT. I have rule books going back almost as long, but just like yourself I support new releases and approach new rule sets with the attitude that they are improvements.

the 2nd ed. nostalgia is due to the fact that in 3rd GW not only tinkered with the rules to improve lacking aspects, but decided to take the game in a different direction. in the tradition of taking a word and attaching "hammer" to the end to describe something, people refer to the old style rules as "characterhammer." models within a squad could be kitted-out with more variety, and the game itself functioned with greater detail and thus at a much slower rate. character models in particular tended to be unstoppable juggernauts, dripping with all manner of quirky and often over-powered wargear.

GW streamlined all aspects of the game turn, leaving a bad taste in the mouths of players who preferred the slower, more detailed game play. as a result, many players feel like the newer editions of 40k are milquetoast and lacking both flavor and tactics. they see the streamlining as a thoughtless blurring of the previous rule sets, sacrificing characterful details in the interest of speeding things up a bit.

and given how much people tend to complain about the changes, I would think using the old rules would be fairly common, although I don't know that it is. this might be due to the fact that a lot of players these days either never played under the old rule systems, or if they once did they have since forgotten too much to be interested in going back to them.

Victomorga
25-10-2008, 18:01
I quit until recently basically because of 2nd edition. In talking about it with my friends we all have stories that basically come down to us talking about how it took an hour per turn, and how it was all champion based. We'd have these huge psyker battles and basically the game stopped being fun and we started throwing large dice at one another.

Turns took so long if you didn't have a side game of solitaire, or Nintendo going it was boring...we'd have two people racing on FZero while another took his turn.

5th edition feels much nicer, it flows more and seems to be more fun....on the other hand, I am 30 now and not 16 so my patience and comprehension of things is a lot higher; that might factor into it..but we're getting in 3 games in a night instead of 1 game taking 3 days..

Remember Vortex grenades? Yeah...that was a game killer...

I most certainly do remember vortex grenades. do you remember displacement fields? an armor savings throw that knocked the saved model backwards away from the model that hit it. don't see how THAT could over-complicate things...

Cartographer
25-10-2008, 18:18
I most certainly do remember vortex grenades. do you remember displacement fields? an armor savings throw that knocked the saved model backwards away from the model that hit it. don't see how THAT could over-complicate things...

Nothing like making your displacer field save only to find you character had been shifted off the 12" tower he'd just been standing on, only time I ever looked up falling damage...

Plus, it didn't over complicate things, there were 2-3 models equipped thusly on the entire board, and you usually couldn't shoot at them because of one shooting restriction or another.

People who talk about 2nd ed taking days to complete in my experience were playing the wrong game, it was focussed on small unit engagements and 750-1000 pts took about an hour to complete. The games that took so long were usually 3000+ points and frankly, should have been played out in epic, a system much more suited to large scale conflicts.

Templar Ben
25-10-2008, 18:27
No. I started 3rd ed too.

Only game i play the old edition of id D&D, I play the 3.5 rules because 4 is a major R***fest

I agree that 3.5 is better than 4th. I prefer 3.5 to ever edition and I started with the red books in the late 70's.


The second a book update comes out, I throw away the older version(s).

My reasons are twofold:

1.) I, unlike every other 40k player on the planet, want to support GW's new releases
2.) I am a firm believer that, from an objective point of view, the newer version is almost always better.

The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....

My mother still does not know what Google or Youtube are.

My father insists that an analog TV is "just as good" as an HDTV.

They call my Xbox360 -- and indeed, any video game -- "nintendo."

As I look around I see many older folks (I myself am 26), and as you age you become more set in your ways. There are so many possibilities of WHY a person could be attached to a particular edition, but I find that generally, it is more nostalgia than anything else.

After all, I am sure the first question they ask when they sit down to do an update is "okay, what is lame and needs fixing?" Everything subsequent is a byproduct of that, i.e. the obvious problem of vehicle survivability in 4th was solved but they then had to reduce their effectiveness offensively to avoid "Vehiclehammer," hence 5th vehicle shooting rules.

Ultimately I have not been around long enough to judge, but when these older guys talk about the "awesome stuff" you could do in second edition, I cringe. Ultimately I feel of the editions I know of, 5th seems to feel the most "correct." Hero models are not insanely good, but a cut above; vehicles are hard to kill but cumbersome; transports are safer for the models inside then being behind it; line of sight works well for vertical issues previously not well addressed; and I believe the missions and deployment styles give the game a good variety of variables to keep it interesting.

I never played 40K until recently and once I played 2nd I found that to be their best game. Perhaps it is because the game fits the objective best. Sure it could be because I am just old and us old people like 2nd but I find that hard to believe.

Victomorga
25-10-2008, 18:27
Nothing like making your displacer field save only to find you character had been shifted off the 12" tower he'd just been standing on, only time I ever looked up falling damage...

Plus, it didn't over complicate things, there were 2-3 models equipped thusly on the entire board, and you usually couldn't shoot at them because of one shooting restriction or another.

People who talk about 2nd ed taking days to complete in my experience were playing the wrong game, it was focussed on small unit engagements and 750-1000 pts took about an hour to complete. The games that took so long were usually 3000+ points and frankly, should have been played out in epic, a system much more suited to large scale conflicts.

so to get back on topic, do you ever go back to the old rules?

Wraithbored
25-10-2008, 18:49
I loved to play 2nd edition with sensible opponents and we had fun. These days not much so in my oppinin 2nd was best and then it's a toss up between 4th and 5th and 3rd being the worst.

luchog
25-10-2008, 19:30
Every edition has it's strengths and weaknesses, some more than others. I like some aspects of 5th more than 4th, and vice versa. 3rd pretty much just sucked all around; although it had a few bright spots.

I'm going to say 2nd is my favorite, despite it's obvious flaws, simply because that's where I started. In general, I'd rather play 4th or 5th; but I do occasionally long for a good 2nd Ed. game.

And I'm trying to get a group together for a good, old-fashioned RT game.

Cartographer
25-10-2008, 19:57
so to get back on topic, do you ever go back to the old rules?

If I ever "get the urge" to play 2nd ed, I dig out a Necromunda gang; I always seem to find someone willing to play.

==Me==
25-10-2008, 20:03
The second a book update comes out, I throw away the older version(s).

My reasons are twofold:

1.) I, unlike every other 40k player on the planet, want to support GW's new releases
2.) I am a firm believer that, from an objective point of view, the newer version is almost always better.

Wow, you sure are defensive in the opening round. Why can't people prefer different things, or is because they're stupid old geezers. I keep ==My== old rulebooks for all the background material and artwork, or does that get invalidated too?


The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....

My mother still does not know what Google or Youtube are.

My father insists that an analog TV is "just as good" as an HDTV.

They call my Xbox360 -- and indeed, any video game -- "nintendo."

As I look around I see many older folks (I myself am 26), and as you age you become more set in your ways. There are so many possibilities of WHY a person could be attached to a particular edition, but I find that generally, it is more nostalgia than anything else.

Umm, so? I still have ==My== SNES (I'm 20 btw) and it still has better games than a lot of things these days. I seriously only keep a Wii around for virtual console (older games are hard to find) and Smash Bros. I'd actually consider someone who has been with the game longer a better judge of what is good. They have more experience playing the various editions and it's possible that they just prefer older editions. But no, it must be the senility kicking in.:rolleyes:


After all, I am sure the first question they ask when they sit down to do an update is "okay, what is lame and needs fixing?" Everything subsequent is a byproduct of that, i.e. the obvious problem of vehicle survivability in 4th was solved but they then had to reduce their effectiveness offensively to avoid "Vehiclehammer," hence 5th vehicle shooting rules.

Try "what's the best way to market our new models?". GW sells models, and the rules promote that, there's no point denying it. They have made a lot of improvements since 3rd edition, but 5th is far from perfect. Pillbox vehicles, pendulum-swinging balance (nerf things and make them more expensive, great idea!), KPs, and the removal of area terrain are among the biggest problems. And don't kid yourself with "Vehiclehammer". 4th edition was dominated by MCs and MCs still have the edge over vehicles, a mix of both edition would have been preferable or a total overhaul of the vehicle rules.


Ultimately I have not been around long enough to judge, but when these older guys talk about the "awesome stuff" you could do in second edition, I cringe. Ultimately I feel of the editions I know of, 5th seems to feel the most "correct." Hero models are not insanely good, but a cut above; vehicles are hard to kill but cumbersome; transports are safer for the models inside then being behind it; line of sight works well for vertical issues previously not well addressed; and I believe the missions and deployment styles give the game a good variety of variables to keep it interesting.

5th is a huge improvement over 4th, and 4th was a huge improvement over 3rd. I never played RT or 2nd so I'll defer to the knowledge of those who played it rather than totally disregard it as "nostalgia" or "old people set in their ways". Don't you think that's just a little disrespectful towards your fellow gamer? 5th is the best version I've played to date, but it has lost some nice things along the way and has plenty of room for improvement.

Eldoriath
25-10-2008, 22:35
I started in 3rd ed, and i dont want to go back to any older edition. 5th ed is really good imo and i'm already a little curius about what they will do in 6th ed since they wont do any major overhauls again like 2nd to 3rd ed. But atm im just looking forward the new guard dex ^^
*fingers crosesd for the re-entry of the griffon mortar*

Sir_Turalyon
26-10-2008, 02:06
I've never player 1st and 2nd edition, but I have both rulesets and we are gathering to play them... one day.

Generaly I play the newest ruleset, but we often use older scenarios. I believe 3rd edition scenarios were the best, rules and background written to represent military operation rather then tournament scenario.

Sidstyler
26-10-2008, 02:59
5th is a huge improvement over 4th, and 4th was a huge improvement over 3rd. I never played RT or 2nd so I'll defer to the knowledge of those who played it rather than totally disregard it as "nostalgia" or "old people set in their ways". Don't you think that's just a little disrespectful towards your fellow gamer? 5th is the best version I've played to date, but it has lost some nice things along the way and has plenty of room for improvement.

In his defense, our "fellow gamers" are often disgustingly disrespectful towards people who prefer newer editions to old as well, often referring to them as "kool-aid-drinking fanboys" or something similar. A lot of people seem to have an elitist attitude towards game editions, fans of 2nd putting themselves above fans of 5th and vice versa.

They dismiss us as being kids who don't know any better, so we dismiss them as old timers too set in their ways. Also, I've never shown anyone respect simply because they're older than I am, age means nothing and respect still needs to be earned, you aren't automatically entitled to it simply because you've been around.

A situation I've seen pop up several times, old timers who've been in the game since the beginning aren't often questioned when a rules problem pops up in game because the less experienced assume they know what they're talking about, and then a quick study of the current rulebook later proves otherwise. Just being older doesn't mean they know better.

Anyway, I myself will probably never play 2nd. Main reason being I know no one with a rulebook nor have I even seen one going on eBay recently. I've heard too many bad things about long turns and game-breaking wargear. But if I'm allowed to use my Tau then I'll make a small army and give it a go, I don't really care...

Isambard
26-10-2008, 03:18
Having played since Rogue Trader I feel confident to say that 5th ed is the best so far.

RT was brilliant, but in many ways unplayable. It worked as a small scale skirmish or a roleplay game, but to play a good sized game was insane.


2nd ed was what really got me addicted to the hobby. I loved that game, and still do. It had its flaws, but I still loved it.

3rd ed brought a massive improvement in playability at a cost in flavour. I think it was worth it (though a few dont).

4th and 5th are just refinements to 3rd, and each one has been a strong improvement. It is not perfect yet, and will require a complete overhall at some point (though I wonder if GW have the guts to do it).

silashand
26-10-2008, 03:36
I generally only play the current edition, but in the case of 40K I much prefer a couple of those rules which seem to be pretty popular house rules (the old terrain rules being the most prevalent I think). That said, I do actually support the use of previous codices if they were at any time viable under the current ruleset. For instance, during 4th when the new chaos codex was released I still found folks who wanted to use the previous one since it worked and had a 4th edition FAQ to clear up most issues. IMO as long as it's viable and was legal at one time then as long as you don't mix & match (e.g. taking the current chaos codex and using the old daemon rules together) then I don't see a problem, especially if someone simply does not find the current codex enjoyable to play. As long as you have mates that will game with you then have at it. However, I don't see that happening much with the basic rules since they apply to everyone. It only seems appropriate with individual army books / codices, but that's me.

For the record, I agree that 40Kv5 is the best version yet with only a couple exceptions such as the terrain thing I mentioned. Wish they'd just use the WFB terrain rules. They work brilliantly and while not absolute TLoS, they are close enough to support the desired realism while only implementing enough abstraction to support the game mechanics well and prevent arguments. TLoS is a great concept, but in this game with the variety of terrain people have and the need to be able to move physical models around I think it leaves a lot to be desired. JMO.

I just wish GW would make the old version army books / codices available on PDF. The one thing I do like about the old stuff is rereading some of the background as well as perusing the old models and stuff. In that regard I wish I'd not sold off all my old books. Ah well...

Cheers, Gary

Santiaghoul
26-10-2008, 03:49
I have not gone back to previous editions. RT was cool as a rpg and fluff generator. 2ed has a lot of good points but as has been stated, it was really ment as a small unit game. I rather liked the close combat with its fumbles, crits etc. But, more than a double handful of models was painfully slow. I had some problems adapting to 3rd but came to really like it. 4th was okay and I think 5th is really good. I think the game has had positive progression over each edition.

But, the main reason I play the most current ruleset is simple. Thats what is supported by GW, if I go into any LGS and try for a game its the most recent rule set that people are going to be familiar with and be willing to play.

Ronin_eX
26-10-2008, 05:35
Love 2nd Edition myself (and for the record I'm younger than EmperorEternalXIX and I first cut my teeth on 2nd) and it is currently the only form of 40k I still play.

I just found that the direction the game went in (scads'o'models and buckets'o'dice :p) wasn't for me. For large battles I prefer Epic and for skirmishes I like 2nd. 3rd edition and on do neither well and in order to fit larger battles into a 28mm scale they had to cut back a lot of the rules which lost 40k a lot of its character.

At this point I don't see much of a reason to support GW if they aren't marketing a game to me and so I choose to use what I already have and spend my money on games that I still have an interest in. Especially after the recent hoopla over the DA codex and their continued poor FAQ support (sure after two years they finally give use FAQs that raise more questions than they answer and often just confuse issues even more) they don't really feel like a company that wants my money, but GW of 1996 sure did enjoy my company and so that's where I spend my time. ;)

Pyriel
26-10-2008, 07:03
Why use older rules? Tbh, i think 4th edition(and to some extent 3rd) was an abortion of a system.Now, about this "2nd edition" mania and the "40k direction"...
It depends on what a person wants.
I mean, a person might be an RPG player that wants to lead a party of heroes in a mission. He has a right to prefer 2nd edition.I also have a right to hate it, since i am a wargame player , and i want to build/command whole armies. None of us is wrong;
"40k must become a proper wargame at all costs"
"40k must never become a something along the lines of wargame simulation".
both these sentences are so bland that they are idiotic.It is just a matter of taste. Do not compare 2nd edition to 5th, they are a different game.

Dangersaurus
26-10-2008, 09:13
everyone seems to have an opinion on which edition of the 40k rules was / is the best.

so my question is this: do you ever play with old editions of the rules? I've never gotten rid of any of my old 40k books, but I never have gone back to previous editions for a game.

particularly I am thinking of 2nd edition, which seems to have a strong following among gamers who have been playing long enough to have experience with the rule set.

I play 2nd edition every other Sunday - we start at 7am*, and our D&D game is supposed to start at 10-11am. We usually play 1000-1500 points, and we usually don't finish all four turns. It's still a lot of fun, but you have to limit yourself on the seriously wacky stuff, play with an eye towards giving the other player a fun game, and most of all... not be super competitive.

I've now had 4 games of 5th edition (lost the first three :D), and I've got to say - I like them both. I'll keep playing 2nd as a "warmup" before the main D&D crowd shows up, and I'll keep playing 5th as part of our local game club.

The toughest thing is gearing all of my armies so that they are legal in either edition. Not too much of a challenge with Tau (duh), but very very difficult with Eldar and Orks.


* Hmm. Less the 6 hours until Turn 1. Should be hitting the sack soon.

leonmallett
26-10-2008, 10:55
I have been around since the first edition and have to say I have felt each new iteration to be an improvement. I took a break of several years during the second edition era, returning in mid third edition. Thre was a lot of improvement with third, but some major negatives (winged CC monsters and Sweeping Advance just rolling through lines for example). Fourth edition really ignited my interest and after a few games in fifth I feel the game is consolidating in some ways, so much so that we are at the finetuning stage.

In regard to the original question, I have no desire to go back to the past as I think the game, models and background have generally (but not wholly) improved over time. I don't see any previous edition as a golden age or high watermark, in respect of either models, rules or background.

I don't think GW have yet made the 'best' iteration of rules and codexes, but I do think they are moving in the right direction.

Supremearchmarshal
26-10-2008, 12:55
Yes, I still occasionally play with either 2nd edition or RT, since they are better suited for skirmish and/or narrative-type games.


Ultimately I hav not been around long enough to judge, but when these older guys talk about the "awesome stuff" you could do in second edition, I cringe. Ultimately I feel of the editions I know of, 5th seems to feel the most "correct."

Aside from your post being rather offensive towards older gamers, I cannot agree with your examples of the game getting better (mind you, I'm not necessarily saying that 5th edition is completely bad):


Hero models are not insanely good, but a cut above;

Ah, the Big Lie. Well guess what, despite what people say characters in 2nd edition were much weaker than in 3rd edition onwards.
Why? Due to the close combat rules of second edition it was possible to force your enemy's uber-character to fight your models one at a time. Also, the game featured plenty of ways to could remove a character without him getting a save.
Examples: Neural Disruptor, Vortex Grenade, Stasis Grenade, many psychic powers.


vehicles are hard to kill but cumbersome;

Why is this good? The basic idea of vehicles is to provide mobility. Static firepower is the domain of bunkers and pillboxes.


transports are safer for the models inside then being behind it;

According to common sense, being in a transport that's exposed to anti-tank weapons would be a bad idea.


line of sight works well for vertical issues previously not well addressed;

At least we agree here.


and I believe the missions and deployment styles give the game a good variety of variables to keep it interesting.

Hah, the 5th edition missions are probably it's weakest point. Have a look at the ones for 3rd edition - those actually looked like real military operations instead of something from your typical RTS video game.

borithan
26-10-2008, 13:24
RT was brilliant, but in many ways unplayable. It worked as a small scale skirmish or a roleplay game, but to play a good sized game was insane.All it was designed for was small scale skirmishes/roleplaying. Yes, they seem to have tried to expand it with army lists later (Imperial Guard Armies being a minimum of 46 guys, and probably larger), but it was intended for small skirmishes... therefore it worked fine for what it was designed.

As they say in the rulebook, however, I don't think it would suit being played as a competitive game, as some things are just open to abuse. However, as it was not designed as such, it meant they could have all sorts of wacky stuff that could not exist in a competitive game... I would say it really would depend on what you want.

edward3h
26-10-2008, 13:33
If I ever "get the urge" to play 2nd ed, I dig out a Necromunda gang; I always seem to find someone willing to play.

Well said! Necromunda plays nicely - the level of detail is good for the typical 10 - 15 models per side. Balance is pretty good because there are only fairly subtle differences between each of the gangs.

If on the other hand you compare it to the parent system, you could end up with 30 - 40 models using that close combat system, and I think that is too much.

I played a few RT revival games a couple of years ago, and they were definitely amusing, but there is a lot more to keep track of. 40k has really grown up into a different kind of game than how it started, and while I miss some of the features of the first edition, it is not suited for the size of game that people typically play now.

Flame Boy
26-10-2008, 13:35
I may have rose-tinted goggles on when I look to the past, but I still enjoy modelling my Death Company with hand flamers, power axes and power fists. Nowadays, It's just the sergeant that gets any variety whatsoever. Sure, the game plays faster, but it's squad after squad of blandness.

Saying that, however, I'm way behind on my painting, and itching to try my Eldar in the 5th edition ruleset. I played 2nd edition at a time when I and my friends were all schoolkids. The only reason 2nd edition took ages to play for us was because we were all stupidly competitive and argued every single point in the game. These days, my friends have moved on to other hobbies, and I have matured a lot more, so I'll be learning the new rules and giving them a spin. Sure, I'll miss my heavy flamer template wielding auto-wounding, instant death Warp Spiders, and the inability to move my Falcon Grav tanks 30" and fire will grate, but the new war walkers are fantastic models, and this scout move may be fun to experiment with.

The interesting part is that there have been few new units added to the Eldar army since 2nd edition, even Shining Spears were introduced then, as was the Fire Prism, so swapping around aspect warriors into smaller squads (3-7 models for most aspects back then to differentiate them from imperial 5-10 limitations) and your Exarchs becoming powerful warriors rather than bonus-conveying squad leaders would be just about the only structural changes to my army should I decide to try either edition.

Discord
26-10-2008, 14:54
Third or fourth? Never. Third, fourth and fifth are pretty much the same game anyway, with each "edition" bringing in minor improvements. I thought third was complete garbage, so I don't really rate fifth that highly, either. But, it's the one that everyone plays...

Rogue Trader or second? I'd play them in a heartbeat. Would, because I don't know anyone to play them with. :(


The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....

Yes yes, the people who prefer older editions than third are senile and don't know better. I suppose one could reply to that with "the fifth ed fans' age is a key factor, I've never met a younger person who had more than half a brain and could make their own decisions".

But seriously, if you really want to find out whether the game is good or not, one should go nab people who don't come with 40k baggage, then have them try out each edition and ask them which they find most tactically interesting and which they'd rather play. I'm in my mid-twenties and I don't prefer old editions because I played them a lot when I was a kid, but because I get more enjoyment out of them. For example, I played lots of 4th edition fantasy battle when I was a kid, but I'd probably not go back to playing it. 3rd edition fantasy though, that I'm too young for. But I've got the rules, I've read them, tried it, *that* game I'd love to play more of. So it's silly to dismiss old editions due to thinking they're only liked by hoary old farts for nostalgic reasons.

gLOBS
26-10-2008, 15:20
I remember the culture shock I got for my first game of 3rd when it came out. My buddy dropped a SM captain with a PF and jump pack onto my carnifex. The captain did soem damage but was only hit once and splattered across the table (first use of instant death wtf moment). Then the carnifex was finished off next turn by measily bolt pistols (which it was immune to days before T8).

Now I really like the way 5th is going. To me it seems to be leaning toward 2nd while staying with the 3rd base set. Overall I feel 2nd would be a stronger system with some of the fat trimmed (pure d6) with the 3-5th hand to hand.

Templar Ben
26-10-2008, 15:30
But seriously, if you really want to find out whether the game is good or not, one should go nab people who don't come with 40k baggage, then have them try out each edition and ask them which they find most tactically interesting and which they'd rather play.

I have done something similar. You can just ask someone a question and then ask what the expected response would be.

Ten men are in squad A. Five are able to see two men from squad B. How many from squad A do you think can shoot? How many men from Squad B can die? If Squad B (where two men can see five) returns fire, how many do you think can actually shoot?

Take the responses and compare them to the actual rules. Some are dead on and some are exactly the opposite of what would be expected.

They were changed for a reason but many can prefer a tactical experience without it being due to "old fartism".

IJW
26-10-2008, 17:24
The second ed fans' age is a key factor, for me. I never met an older person that wasn't simply set in their ways....
As you've probably worked out already, you made zero friends with that remark... ;)

I'm a decade older than you, yet somehow 5th ed is my favourite edition at the moment. I've still got the rulebooks for all previous editions other than 3rd ed, and there's no way I would get rid of them, even if I don't feel much urge to play with those rules. If nothing else, they contain a wealth of background, game ideas etc.

EmperorEternalXIX
26-10-2008, 17:30
I apologize for coming off as defensive. It is just that here we sit with the umpteenth warseer thread this month of "let's play the game completely not how it's intending to be played" and it is no secret how I feel about such things. However I suppose playing an old edition is different from the usual "let's break the game to feel like we're smarter than the people at GW" fare.

I did not, however, mean to disrespect the older veteran folks. I will try to elaborate on my reasoning a bit.


Wow, you sure are defensive in the opening round. Why can't people prefer different things, or is because they're stupid old geezers. I keep ==My== old rulebooks for all the background material and artwork, or does that get invalidated too? In some cases, yes, actually. It is their story, and all stories evolve over time. The fact that 40k is a living breathing ongoing scenario doesn't help that much, and so we are gonna feel every speedbump and every minor hiccup they encounter as they upgrade their background info.


Umm, so? I still have ==My== SNES (I'm 20 btw) and it still has better games than a lot of things these days. I seriously only keep a Wii around for virtual console (older games are hard to find) and Smash Bros. I still have my SNES too. That does not mean that the newer machines are not better. I have it as an homage to my childhood -- nostalgia of a simpler time when there were more good games then bad. But I own an Xbox 360 now as mentioned previously and I think it is the best thing since sliced bread, and there is no doubting that it is superior in capabilities. It has MANY good games for it, more than I can recall for any game in recent memory. Other newer machines have had similar runs, however -- the PS2 jumps to mind. This is akin to old editions of warhammer requiring the old unbalanced armies, really; what reason is there to play that other than being set in one's ways (and I mean that regardless of age)?


I'd actually consider someone who has been with the game longer a better judge of what is good. They have more experience playing the various editions and it's possible that they just prefer older editions. But no, it must be the senility kicking in.:rolleyes: I do not want to disrespect the veteran community, far from it. I appreciate them most, as it is their long dedication to the hobby that I hope to emulate in my omnipresent support of GW and it's products. Generally this is a wise sentiment you have. But this is Warhammer 40,000, a game that is -- at least here -- constantly berated and attacked for it's awful unplayable rules and terribly imbalanced codex releases. You could not get an objective opinion out of this board in any way shape or form regarding what ruleset is the best, only which they'd prefer (or in many cases, which would get villified the least...which is 2nd Ed). That being said...the idea that vets have played more editions does indeed make their opinions have more value than a lowly newbie's, but I am not talking about the people who speak with well measured thoughts and see both sides of the fence. I am talking mostly in reference to those guys who show up in a rules forum thread and just reminisce about how magically said rules query would never have existed in second edition -- while never acknowledging that it would have been because a horribly unbalanced wargear like a vortex grenade would have devoured all the models in question.


Try "what's the best way to market our new models?". GW sells models, and the rules promote that, there's no point denying it. Well, of course the new models tend to be good. It is a natural evolution of the game, really. But we decide that. I'm sure the Ironclad was born out of a low sales figure for dreads last year because of their bad survivability...so technically we are as much to blame as GW. But what is to stop GW from making a 14-14-12 dreadnought for 25 points? Or 5-point-per-model terminators? Nothing except ethics, really. They make new models good, but not nearly as good as they could be if they were simply pushing for it's sales with no regard to the game. Nobody here wants to acknowledge it at all, of course, but there is an inevitable plan and balance is, at the very least, CONSIDERED as that plan is unfurled along the way. No Warseer member will ever admit or believe that, of course...


They have made a lot of improvements since 3rd edition, but 5th is far from perfect. Pillbox vehicles, pendulum-swinging balance (nerf things and make them more expensive, great idea!), KPs, and the removal of area terrain are among the biggest problems. And don't kid yourself with "Vehiclehammer". 4th edition was dominated by MCs and MCs still have the edge over vehicles, a mix of both edition would have been preferable or a total overhaul of the vehicle rules. I have issue with almost all of this:

Pillbox vehicles is a balance to the fact that they are almost invincible these days; would you rather have them be the same but cost 350 points each?

Nerfing things and making them more expensive is done at our behest, not theirs. You think the Assault Cannon got that treatment for any other reason than incessant whining of the community at large? The entire debate was ridiculous, and the gun has been reduced to near worthlessness because of it.

KPs move the game quickly and help to force us to keep balanced army lists, instead of just stocking up on the fastest, most numerous, or hardest to kill troops choices.

The removal of area terrain is a misnomer. Area terrain still exists (ruins count as it, for example). The new LOS and terrain rules promote movement and help tactics be more flexible with more risk/reward type decisions to be made. THings with low risk high reward -- like camping 5.5" deep in a forest or a pile of rocks -- have no place in competitive games such as this one. It is akin, to use a video game analogy, to a shooting game having sniper rifles with no recoil and tons of dark windows to fire them from; sooner or later it will be all people use. And such was the case with area terrain. People gave no thought to protecting their models or how to deploy because they could simply plop down their favorite forest or pile of rubble and camp out behind it, denying the enemy any viable targets.

MCs are a lot more mortal thanks to the new consolidation rules. Which, the Tyranid players all seem to feel, is another useless broken unhelpful rule.


5th is a huge improvement over 4th, and 4th was a huge improvement over 3rd. I never played RT or 2nd so I'll defer to the knowledge of those who played it rather than totally disregard it as "nostalgia" or "old people set in their ways". Don't you think that's just a little disrespectful towards your fellow gamer? 5th is the best version I've played to date, but it has lost some nice things along the way and has plenty of room for improvement. I would like to apologize to the old vets if I came off as being disrespectful to them en masse. I just feel very strongly that "newer" is almost always "better" -- as the first part of making something "newer" is to isolate its known flaws and eliminate them. As I said before, most rules are byproducts of the more necessary changes.

That being said, the latest edition is always going to be my favorite, for better or worse, because it will have corrected the flaws of the previous one.

@IJW: Apologies, my friend. I meant no disrespect. Though surely, it is harder to find a 19 year old 2nd ed proponent, then a 35 year old one? That aside... I play as the space marines and don't think GW sucks. I have no friends here in the first place, hehe.

IJW
26-10-2008, 18:01
I just feel very strongly that "newer" is almost always "better" -- as the first part of making something "newer" is to isolate its known flaws and eliminate them.
As much as I like 5th ed, this simply isn't the case all the time. I don't see 5th ed. as 'better' than RT or 2nd ed, I see them as different - because they are for different purposes. If you want to play a skirmish game, RT & 2nd are distinctly better then 3-5 editions because that's what RT & 2nd ed were designed for.

As a side-example, I've been digging out all my Space Hulk stuff, both from 1st edition (1989) and second edition (1996). The 1996 version has enormously better Terminator models, much more colourful boards and counters and improved layout for all the rules and missions. Visually, it was a vast improvement. Unfortunately GW managed to screw up the rules so badly that it tanked, and ended up in remainder stores all over the place.
Space Hulk 1st ed. lived and died with the claustrophobic, time-limited turn for the Marine player, plus the 'Stealer player's uncertainty about the number of actions the Marine player had left over for the 'Stealer turn.
2nd ed got rid of both the timer, and the Marine player's ability to save command points for the 'Stealer turn. It also went from scores on a d6 to special dice, and therefore made it near-impossible to make expansions, or even add rules for new weapons or troop types.

To give you an idea how good Space Hulk 1st edition was, http://boardgamesgeek.com still has it ranked at 77th. That might not sound so good, but that's out of nearly 5,000 board games for a game that's been out of production for more than fifteen years...

EmperorEternalXIX
26-10-2008, 18:24
To give you an idea how good Space Hulk 1st edition was, http://boardgamesgeek.com still has it ranked at 77th. That might not sound so good, but that's out of nearly 5,000 board games for a game that's been out of production for more than fifteen years... I have to admit that even I, being such a proponent of newer = better, have had an interest in looking up some stuff about Space Hulk...

I suppose you are right, IJW. I just had a long philosophical debate over IMs with a friend of mine regarding "game design philosophy" and essentially the only concrete conclusion I could arrive at is that all of this is really subjective. Plus, after further discussion, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of things that, for one reason or another, had later iterations that were not superior to the original.

I have heard that 5th is a mish mash of 4th ed and miscellaneous other old rules in some points. Perhaps over time, GW will take the best aspects of all the editions and incorporate them into one clean game. Until then we can only conjecture, and again, I have to apologize...I tend to be a very incendiary poster, oftentimes without meaning to be.

All this aside, of the version of the game I have played, I consider 5th my favorite. I like a lot of the streamlining and I feel like survivability is a bit more logical across the board in 5th (I always thought things died a little too easily in 4th...tanks and terminators shouldn't be exactly cringing in fear as they advance, you know?).

Hokiecow
26-10-2008, 18:42
As I look around I see many older folks (I myself am 26), and as you age you become more set in your ways. There are so many possibilities of WHY a person could be attached to a particular edition, but I find that generally, it is more nostalgia than anything else.

Spoken like a true young whipper snapper! Not to get on the topic of age, but I have to say it's 3 factors: money, experience and knowledge. For example, those older know that a DVD can entrain equally then a BlueRay DVD for a fraction of the cost. Now I came into 3rd ed and don't have too many fond memories of it. However I feel that 4th ed made things much more simpler and made for a speedier game. I applaud GW for trying to get players to engulf themselves into the game by using TLOS but it can really slow things down when you have to debate weather a model is cover or not.

Discord
26-10-2008, 20:20
This is akin to old editions of warhammer requiring the old unbalanced armies, really; what reason is there to play that other than being set in one's ways (and I mean that regardless of age)?

How about liking it better and thinking it gives a better game?

Also, old editions don't require unbalanced armies. They're easier to make unbalanced armies in, that's true. On the flip side, it's also easier to make a nice, fluffy, themed army, since they have less limitations. But newer rulesets have their share of unbalanced armies too. Heck, the current tournament scene practically forces people to tinker with their armies, so they don't lose to the beardy git with his nobrainer cheeselist that's bound to show up at some point.

The Clairvoyant
26-10-2008, 22:25
When 3rd ed came out, i carried on playing 2nd ed. Then moved to playing WFB (at that time it was 4th/5th ed)
Now returning to 40k for 5th ed, yes it seems good so far, but i would like to have a game of 2nd ed again.
Though it had its 'slow' moments, i never found it as slow as some people are making out. I'd go round to a schoolfriends house on a saturday morning and play a 10k point game and then get the bus home again early evening.
It was only slow if you make it slow. There were so many things you could do to speed things up, little shortcuts here and there. For example, we'd start our turn and say "everything is on overwatch". Then move and shoot during the rest of the turn. Moving or shooting cancelled overwatch so it was easy to just to say everything was on overwatch. Similarly, we never bothered with declare charge/move chargers elements of the move phase, we did it one go. Shout "charge!" and move the models, then do the next ones.

Ronin_eX
27-10-2008, 01:41
When 3rd ed came out, i carried on playing 2nd ed. Then moved to playing WFB (at that time it was 4th/5th ed)
Now returning to 40k for 5th ed, yes it seems good so far, but i would like to have a game of 2nd ed again.
Though it had its 'slow' moments, i never found it as slow as some people are making out. I'd go round to a schoolfriends house on a saturday morning and play a 10k point game and then get the bus home again early evening.
It was only slow if you make it slow. There were so many things you could do to speed things up, little shortcuts here and there. For example, we'd start our turn and say "everything is on overwatch". Then move and shoot during the rest of the turn. Moving or shooting cancelled overwatch so it was easy to just to say everything was on overwatch. Similarly, we never bothered with declare charge/move chargers elements of the move phase, we did it one go. Shout "charge!" and move the models, then do the next ones.

Indeed, I play it now and it certainly isn't as slow as many think. It had its cumbersome bits and its imbalanced lists but current editions have their cumbersome bits and their unbalanced lists. For me it is the basic system and the character of the rules that keeps me playing 2nd.

I prefer skirmish games from squad to platoon level and 3rd and on do these games, to be generous, poorly. Sure you can play a 500 point game now but as units go down so do the possible numbers of interactions between them which really makes the game simple at lower levels. Now with RT and 2nd these small skirmishes were the bread and butter and it showed because there was a lot more room for interaction whether it be the many ways you could use overwatch (cut off an approach, prepare for an assault, suppress enemy units on overwatch, etc.) or the way that slower movement and range bands made maneuvering and cover so important (no longer was "short-range" simply charge range and CQB-style firefights were quite common and lasted for more than just one turn because to cross that final gap and assault the enemy required coordinating units).

5th edition is certainly much better at doing what it does (lots of models but not quite past the "skirmish" level due to scale) but it lost a lot of what I liked in 40k and the style of play in current editions doesn't appeal to me nearly as much.


In some cases, yes, actually. It is their story, and all stories evolve over time. The fact that 40k is a living breathing ongoing scenario doesn't help that much, and so we are gonna feel every speedbump and every minor hiccup they encounter as they upgrade their background info.

Or we can just not. No one is holding a gun to our heads saying we must use GW's background, current rules or anything of the kind. I bought the rulebooks, they're mine and since I have a group of like-minded individuals we can agree to play it how we want even if it includes using *gasp* outdated rules!

Seriously you make it sound like as soon as you step on the GW treadmill that you suddenly have to accept what they do. Well personally I don't really want to buy into a game to feel "every bump and minor hiccup" so I'll choose what to play what I and my group prefer, makes for a much smoother ride in my experience. ;)

cailus
27-10-2008, 02:15
I prefer 2nd edition but given that most of the old hands that play it have moved on to Fantasy or don't game, I don't have any opprtunity to play it.

After 2nd I liked 4th because it made sense with things like area terrain, better shooting, mobile vehicles etc. However given that most people at my local now playing 40K started at the tail end of 4th edition, I can't play that one either as they're all into 5th edition.

Basically at my local 40K has become simply the introductory system for newbies. With 6 months, the newbies have either progressed to Fantasy/FoW/Warmachine/boardgames or given up gaming at all. 40K has become to be regarded as a rubbish game with great miniatures and background.

5th edition has been seen as the last straw for a lot of vets who have branched out to other systems.

I don't like 5th edition - it emphasises Dice Roll-a-thon 40,000 with lots of models and is counterintuitive.

I think 40K worked better as a skirmish game (i.e. 2nd edition). Wackiness and doing all manner of things such as throwing grenades, setting things on fire is a lot more fun than Move-Shoot-Assault- Repeat.

It really fails miserably as a company level wargame.

Compare 40K 3rd-5th edition with say Flames of War:

1. 40K is pushing 60-120 models in a standard game. Flames of War often involves only 20-30 but this represents entire companies (e.g a rifle squad of 10 guys is based on 2 stands of 5 infantry each). 40K is currently more boring to play simply because you're rolling so many dice and moving around so many models.

2.Lack of real military actions in 40k - 40K is shooting and assaulting. Things such as leadership and artillery play a very limited role. 40k doesn't do things such as Reconaissance, Air Support, suppressive fire etc. FoW does. For example a unit of mortars is very useful in FoW because it pins the enemy down thereby limiting their ability to act. In 40K the mortar is for the most part a joke. In 40K anti-tank weapons are used in anti-infantry roles while heavy rate of fire anti-infantry weapons as rare. In 40K range doesn't play any role. In FoW long range does play a role.

3. 40K is counterintuitive - in some instances it makes more sense to stand out of cover than in cover. In 40K standing behind cover gives you a save as opposed to making it harder to hit the opponent. 40k cover is better against heavy artillery than small arms (basically a wall will stop a artillery shell but doesn't help with say a lasgun). Flames of War makes sense.

2nd edition used to do wargaming a lot better as it covered a lot of above areas e.g. to-hit modifiers, sustained fire weapons, as well as more skirmish orientated actions such as throwing grenades.

So nowadays I'm more likely to play Flames of War. I'm in the midst of painting up a new Warboss for my Orks (one of the metal ones) and would love to play more 40K. However the ruleset is really offputting as is the fact that most people playing 40K are newbs who don't know the rules (makes for full games).

EmperorEternalXIX
27-10-2008, 06:36
Things like this are why I am constantly getting into arguments around here. "40k sucks it's stupid only idiots play it it is for newbies fortunately then they get a clue." If any of the veterans were offended by my generalizations, you have posts like the above to thank for breeding them.

Anyway--You know, I don't know about you guys, but I think the "skirmish level" battles ideal is just stupidly small in scale for a game of interplanetary conquest.

Skirmish level battles are meaningless unless they are a part of a larger, more meaningful offensive. I think that games of 40k are not really "company level engagements" as much as they are "a series of skirmish level engagements happening together"...personally I think that seeing it as a slice of a much larger war taking place makes a lot of sense. i.e. when my models run off the table, I don't imagine them falling off of existence and dying, but rather becoming engaged by vastly superior forces offboard from the rest of the battle and being destroyed.

When I look at a Flames of War board I see a pretty disinteresting looking scale. It is not many models on a mostly empty table, and typically, they are miles away from each other. Still, I don't like to compare the two. Most of the stuff detailed above is subjective, and has a dose of bias on top of it. World War II is not the same setting as the Grim Darkness of the Far Future; of course a mortar is not a big deal! You aren't shooting it at a guy in nothing but BDUs and a supply vest, you are shooting it at freakish green killing machines, giant mechanical robots that don't die, or genetically engineered freaks possessed by daemons and wearing tank plates for body armor!

You are probably right though. I guess being able to run an entire company for 20+ years clearly indicates the game is "failing miserably as a company level wargame." Clearly 5th is an insult and is the last straw.

Sheesh.

Dangersaurus
27-10-2008, 07:11
Played Chaos Space Marines vs. Orks in 2nd edition this morning. 1500 points either side, finished in 3 1/2 hours, just a little over the normal D&D start time.

I used an all chaos marine force made up of three to six man squads. It consisted of two heavy weapon vet squads, a squad of undivided led by a lord, a rhino-mounted squad of berzerkers with Kharn, and a squad of plague marines. For grins I took 3 bases of nurglings.

The Orks had warbikes, nobs in mega-armour toting multimeltas, a bowelburna, Nazdreg with a gyro-stabilize mono-wheel and a multi-melta, a shooty dreadnaught, and a trio of deathskull lootas.

We met in the picked-over ruins of an imperial outpost, and from the start I struggled. His Nobs tumbled out in front of my forces and the burning chemical spray from the bowelburna made quick work of the plague marines and undivided. The first squad of chosen/vets did well from behind enemy lines, ripping apart a jumpack-wearing cybork mekboy and several bikes. The tankbusters had mixed results, and the rest quickly fell apart as well.

My rhino even wounded Nazdreg. Kharn took a hit from a lascannon, then finally succumbed to a multimelta. The chaos lord went down under a hail of heavy bolter, autocannon and lascannon fire, while the bowelburna and bikes raced back and forth gunning down stragglers. At last on turn 4, only my wounded rhino and a single chaos marine running around on fire survived in my army.

The star of the show was the bowelburna. I think epicast might have put the point cost a little low, but I also might be stinging from some really cagy moves he made with his vehicles.

Warforger
27-10-2008, 07:24
Has anyone tried playing 2nd with the current codices? Change a couple of skills that weren't there during 2nd ed, or just use them how they are in 5th. Maybe change how some of the units are played. That would be interesting.

ankara halla
27-10-2008, 07:52
It would require more than a little work to get them to work, it's a compleatly different system now.

Reaver83
27-10-2008, 08:25
I couldn't stand to play 2nd ed now, the characters were horribly overpowered, it took forever to play as well and lets not even talk about some psychic powers/wargear. Yes it did have some things which i wish we still had, to hit modifiers and armour save modifiers, but they don't make up for it.

I pretty much missed 3rd entirely, and came back with 4th. I think 5th Is a massive improvement over the last two iterations of the game, and whilst it's not prfect I think there is a better degree of balance as far as the rules go.

Ronin_eX
27-10-2008, 08:26
You know, I don't know about you guys, but I think the "skirmish level" battles ideal is just stupidly small in scale for a game of interplanetary conquest.

40k is skirmish level too incidentally (it doesn't deal with larger force level concerns like, say, Epic does) just larger skirmish level than 2nd or RT. In any case in a game that depicts thousands of troops dieing in single engagements I hardly think the paltry 50-200 minis on the table is any less small for "interplanetary conquest".

I suggest looking at Epic if you want an idea of a true high level TTG. The individual firefights in Epic represent full engagements in 40k (and 2nd Edition is usually closer in scale to the forces one would find in a normal Epic firefight with supporting fire).

In any case I simply don't think I can possibly see eye to eye with you on this matter. 40k has always been about showing a small section of a battle being waged on a larger scale and 3rd edition and on don't actually move beyond this in any way shape or form other than representing more units crammed into that small section.

In any case why does every combat fought need to be between hundreds or thousands of troops? Are their no specialist actions that require smaller forces in your mind or can everything be achieved by tossing wave after wave of troops into it?

No matter how grim or dark their will be times when a 40k engagement is not waves of men clashing over vastly important objectives. 40k has always been about representing these situations or small chunks of the former situation. It has remained, through all editions, a skirmish game (it doesn't deal with wider strategic assets in more than a cursory way, you don't need to worry about positioning artillery, it's just there when it needs to be). RT worked well from squad to platoon level while 2nd worked well for platoon and a little above (could do squad level but I found it worked best with at least a couple squads in there). Current editions do platoon level at the very least and can get up to the edge of being company level before it breaks down and Epic becomes a better analog for representing things.

So for me personally I enjoy the smaller frame and more personal nature of platoon or squad level skirmish at 28mm. For company level stuff 15mm seems ideal while 8-6mm is perfect for massive engagements. What I see is current editions trying to shoehorn a game that would work better at 15mm into a 28mm system and producing a game that isn't ideal for either level.

So I prefer to keep things to a level the game is more focused in, just works better for me and makes things easier to picture. If I want large battles then Epic is a great source for them because they bring in a lot more elements that simply aren't present in the kinda-skirmish-kinda-not of 3rd Edition and on.


"40k sucks it's stupid only idiots play it it is for newbies fortunately then they get a clue."

You really don't need to get so defensive, the guy was just stating a trend in his area. The way you post I'd think you've got stock in GW or something. Cool down, if some one criticizes GW or any of their products they aren't insulting you so no need to take it so personally and feel the need to defend them at every turn. C'est la vie and all that.

chromedog
27-10-2008, 08:38
I've played since RT - and have had at least a couple of years in each version (I played from 87 to 93, then came back in in 1997).

Rt was playable, but it was patched and packed so much it looked like granddad's axe. Multiple different upgrades and changes. The first "vehicles have T and D", then to vehicles have Armour, then to nowadays. 5th is an improvement on 3rd, while bringing some of the elements of RT/2nd back in without all of the rules that hamstrung them.

I've been known to call a nintendo wii an "atari" (just to annoy one of the kids in my club who has no idea what I'm on about), or even better, the "Atari super-coleco-famicom-box".

Supremearchmarshal
27-10-2008, 11:48
I couldn't stand to play 2nd ed now, the characters were horribly overpowered, it took forever to play as well and lets not even talk about some psychic powers/wargear. Yes it did have some things which i wish we still had, to hit modifiers and armour save modifiers, but they don't make up for it.

The bit about the characters just keeps getting brought up despite it being blatantly false. See my earlier post in this topic - there were plenty of ways to deal with characters provided you used a bit of tactics. Nowadays a character can rip through several squads. In 2nd edition you could tie him up indefinitely by forcing him to fight one model per turn.

I completely agree that the psychic powers and wargear cards were excessive and detracted from the game, as well as slowing it down. In this respect 2nd edition was a step back from RT.

About taking forever to play, I believe this is due to people using armies that are too large for the game to handle.

tsutek
27-10-2008, 13:29
After our group got into playing Necromunda a while ago, I find myself enjoying 5th Ed 40k less and less.. Like yesterday, we played a 750pt combat patrol using 5th ed rules, and I found myself thinking "god how boring alessio has made this game into".. you can flame me now.

It seems that a 'downgrade' to 2nd ed rules is inevitable. The only thing holding us back ATM is the lack of army lists for tau, which will be solved eventually (already found a few good tau dex's for 2nd ed from online, just have to test 'em a bit)

Occulto
27-10-2008, 14:17
I've played since RT - and have had at least a couple of years in each version (I played from 87 to 93, then came back in in 1997).

Rt was playable, but it was patched and packed so much it looked like granddad's axe. Multiple different upgrades and changes. The first "vehicles have T and D", then to vehicles have Armour, then to nowadays. 5th is an improvement on 3rd, while bringing some of the elements of RT/2nd back in without all of the rules that hamstrung them.

Someone tried to get me to play RT, but I took one look at the rulebook, the process of writing (aka rolling) up an army, and told him no thanks.

I don't play older systems much because I've either got no idea where the rules are, or I don't want to start letting old edition rules into what I play now. I've just got my head round the changes from 4th to 5th ed, so chucking in some 3rd ed combat will just confuse things. :p


"Atari super-coleco-famicom-box".

About twenty years worth of computer magazines just flashed through my head reading that! :D

==Me==
27-10-2008, 14:48
I apologize for coming off as defensive. It is just that here we sit with the umpteenth warseer thread this month of "let's play the game completely not how it's intending to be played" and it is no secret how I feel about such things. However I suppose playing an old edition is different from the usual "let's break the game to feel like we're smarter than the people at GW" fare.

Reading over ==My== post I came off a tad agressive too, and I apologize for that. But to your sentiments I'd simply respond that the way the game is intended to be played is the way that your gaming group enjoys the most. And I find there will be people who complain about everything the same way there will be people who defend everything all the time. Those discussions get heated very quickly and go down in flames, so I just try to ignore them beyond getting a few laughs in. I can understand where you're coming from (I was in very similar shoes a up until recently), but tarring everyone with the same brush is not going to help get your point across.


I did not, however, mean to disrespect the older veteran folks. I will try to elaborate on my reasoning a bit.

Oh boy, a reasonable and mature argument, I haven't seen one of those in ages.


In some cases, yes, actually. It is their story, and all stories evolve over time. The fact that 40k is a living breathing ongoing scenario doesn't help that much, and so we are gonna feel every speedbump and every minor hiccup they encounter as they upgrade their background info.

I prefer to see the background as a "setting", a backdrop for our games. There are so many inconsistencies between various background sources, Black Library, and editions I have simply decided that it is all canon and relevant. In this galaxy-spanning Imperium with a horribly bloated and inefficient beaurocracy and huge disparities in communiciations I would say it is totally acceptable for records to be contradictory or even flat out wrong. I see the background as much more mutable and encourage people to make it their own. Instead of complaining about retcon, I just incorporate it into the massive conspiracy that consititutes the background. It adds a whole new feel to the game if you aren't even sure what your army fights for or who you can count as friend or foe, it fits 40k perfectly.


I still have my SNES too. That does not mean that the newer machines are not better. I have it as an homage to my childhood -- nostalgia of a simpler time when there were more good games then bad. But I own an Xbox 360 now as mentioned previously and I think it is the best thing since sliced bread, and there is no doubting that it is superior in capabilities. It has MANY good games for it, more than I can recall for any game in recent memory. Other newer machines have had similar runs, however -- the PS2 jumps to mind. This is akin to old editions of warhammer requiring the old unbalanced armies, really; what reason is there to play that other than being set in one's ways (and I mean that regardless of age)?

Xbox 360 doesn't play Donkey Kong Country, which is why I have ==My== SNES :) Picking up older games is lots of nostalgia, but it also gives you opportunities to enjoy things you can't now. New and old don't need to be mutually exclusive, just play what you like and have a good time.


I do not want to disrespect the veteran community, far from it. I appreciate them most, as it is their long dedication to the hobby that I hope to emulate in my omnipresent support of GW and it's products. Generally this is a wise sentiment you have. But this is Warhammer 40,000, a game that is -- at least here -- constantly berated and attacked for it's awful unplayable rules and terribly imbalanced codex releases. You could not get an objective opinion out of this board in any way shape or form regarding what ruleset is the best, only which they'd prefer (or in many cases, which would get villified the least...which is 2nd Ed). That being said...the idea that vets have played more editions does indeed make their opinions have more value than a lowly newbie's, but I am not talking about the people who speak with well measured thoughts and see both sides of the fence. I am talking mostly in reference to those guys who show up in a rules forum thread and just reminisce about how magically said rules query would never have existed in second edition -- while never acknowledging that it would have been because a horribly unbalanced wargear like a vortex grenade would have devoured all the models in question.

You'll have those sorts of people on both sides of any discussion, and it just isn't worth it alienating a whole group of people and drawing ire from the community even if you meant something else. Ignore them and carry on with the discussion. You don't have to take criticism of 40k so personally, some people will be stubborn and obnoxious, others may just not like the system, or some love the game so much that they want to find ways to make it better. And it's simple enough to figure out who is who in those sort of discussions.


Well, of course the new models tend to be good. It is a natural evolution of the game, really. But we decide that. I'm sure the Ironclad was born out of a low sales figure for dreads last year because of their bad survivability...so technically we are as much to blame as GW. But what is to stop GW from making a 14-14-12 dreadnought for 25 points? Or 5-point-per-model terminators? Nothing except ethics, really. They make new models good, but not nearly as good as they could be if they were simply pushing for it's sales with no regard to the game. Nobody here wants to acknowledge it at all, of course, but there is an inevitable plan and balance is, at the very least, CONSIDERED as that plan is unfurled along the way. No Warseer member will ever admit or believe that, of course...

You make a fair point regarding 25 point Land Raider Dreads, GW has to maintain at least a semblance of balance of they lose a lot of customers. There is a plan, but it changes every few years and doesn't accomplish much beyond frustrating people. I'll take the marine codex as an example. Compare it to Dark Angels, Chaos, Daemons, and even Orks. Instead of paring down on the options, marines get even more units and don't lose nearly as many options as the others. I think the new SM Codex is great, but GW constantly changing their direction midstream can hurt the game by either unbalancing the armies or making customers unhappy. If they can keep up this quality and format for the rest of the Codices I'll be extremely happy, and dreaming.


Pillbox vehicles is a balance to the fact that they are almost invincible these days; would you rather have them be the same but cost 350 points each?

It depends on which vehicles you refer too I suppose. Land Raiders are and should be the ultimate fighting vehicle, but things like Land Speeders, Eldar grav tanks, and Leman Russ tanks are not all that difficult to kill in 5th edition. Low armor is still low armor and combat against the rear hurts too. If vehicles had more mobility they would be a more unique choice instead of a different kind of MC. MCs stay harder to kill, but vehicles are faster and I think that would be a good balance. Such a change would require some rebalancing obviouly, but nothing too serious I'd wager.


Nerfing things and making them more expensive is done at our behest, not theirs. You think the Assault Cannon got that treatment for any other reason than incessant whining of the community at large? The entire debate was ridiculous, and the gun has been reduced to near worthlessness because of it.

The cynic would say it's GW encouraging us to pick up the new Land Speeder Typhoon now that your Tornadoes are worthless:angel:


KPs move the game quickly and help to force us to keep balanced army lists, instead of just stocking up on the fastest, most numerous, or hardest to kill troops choices.

KPs can be abused like VPs, but it tends to hurt some armies more than others (y hallo thar IG). Transports being worth KPs is just dumb, and the whole IG issue bears repeating. I would prefer Annihilation missions to be about destroying specific units or FOC choices, like kill all HQs or Troops. Removes the silly KP rules, reduces t3h maths even more, and makes for an interesting scenario if each player rolls their objective seperately and in secret.


The removal of area terrain is a misnomer. Area terrain still exists (ruins count as it, for example). The new LOS and terrain rules promote movement and help tactics be more flexible with more risk/reward type decisions to be made. THings with low risk high reward -- like camping 5.5" deep in a forest or a pile of rocks -- have no place in competitive games such as this one. It is akin, to use a video game analogy, to a shooting game having sniper rifles with no recoil and tons of dark windows to fire them from; sooner or later it will be all people use. And such was the case with area terrain. People gave no thought to protecting their models or how to deploy because they could simply plop down their favorite forest or pile of rubble and camp out behind it, denying the enemy any viable targets.

There has to be a middle ground between having forests composed of 3 trees and a board covered in nothing but Size 3 area terrain. TLOS and area terrain is nothing something I think fits together well. Size categories should make a comeback, only done clearly to prevent confusion and terrain really needs to be agreed upon before the game.


MCs are a lot more mortal thanks to the new consolidation rules. Which, the Tyranid players all seem to feel, is another useless broken unhelpful rule.

Again with the generalizing :p MCs are still just as awesome as before, what hurts 'nids is all the other changes in 5th. Troops only score, and their Troops are either too expensive to be sitting on a hill or require Synapse. No Retreat hurts bugs a lot too, especially the smaller ones (it's actually smarter to send in the 'fex alone rather than have 20 gaunts join him, as the enemy can focus on killing gaunts and force saves on the 'fex). That and venom cannons got nerfed against vehicles.


I would like to apologize to the old vets if I came off as being disrespectful to them en masse. I just feel very strongly that "newer" is almost always "better" -- as the first part of making something "newer" is to isolate its known flaws and eliminate them. As I said before, most rules are byproducts of the more necessary changes.

That being said, the latest edition is always going to be my favorite, for better or worse, because it will have corrected the flaws of the previous one.[/quoe]

I would agree overall, except that having something new does not automatically invalidate the old. They can both exist and they can both be good, it just depends on what you want to play. With the depth and breadth that 40k and its armies have, fixing every problem is going to be impossible. Most editions try to fix problems and often end up creating a few of their own, they just might be fewer or less severe than before. To return to the video game analogy, ==My== SNES has never gotten the RRoD.

[quote]@IJW: Apologies, my friend. I meant no disrespect. Though surely, it is harder to find a 19 year old 2nd ed proponent, then a 35 year old one? That aside... I play as the space marines and don't think GW sucks. I have no friends here in the first place, hehe.

I think you might be surprised about the age of 2nd ed players ;) I play Space Marines and don't think GW sucks either, I just have a problem with some of their business practices at times.

Good god I wrote a lot, a beer for anyone who can finish this!

Templar Ben
27-10-2008, 15:23
Woo hoo, I get a beer. ;)

EE, when he says "Company level" he is referring to a military company. That is an organization between the size of a Platoon and a Battalion. You may have heard of an older list known as an "Armored Company" if that helps.

I understand that you think that having a space to maneuver troops prior to engagement, suppressive fire, overwatch, etc. don't add to the level of gameplay. I am sure in your games they do not. There are a number of people though that think the game should be closer to what combat is actually like (in so much as it can be with chainsaws and killer robots) and those people tend to play Epic for larger battles (it is a smaller scale so you have room to manuever your larger forces) or Second Edition.

I agree that if you want a true tactical experience there are much better options. If you want it to be closer to reality but still want GrimDark and Chainsaws (or want to use your existing minis) then it is more natural to play an older edition or a Specialist Game.

Discord
27-10-2008, 16:10
Anyway--You know, I don't know about you guys, but I think the "skirmish level" battles ideal is just stupidly small in scale for a game of interplanetary conquest.

Well, good thing it's not a game about interplanetary conquests then, but about the battles in a grim, dark future.


Skirmish level battles are meaningless unless they are a part of a larger, more meaningful offensive.

Oh really? So the lone assassin dispatched to eliminate the rebellious governor so his world can be brought back under imperial rule without sending in troops is meaningless? The adeptus arbites exchanging gunfire with a local gang that's done some nasty robberies and left a few corpses behind is meaningless? The inquisitor accompanied by his group of handpicked men and a few squads of guardsmen taking out a cultist coven before their grandiose plans can be fulfilled is meaningless? What about the squad of terminators braving a genestealer-infested hulk for long-lost knowledge? Or Fabius Bile and his crew raiding an imperial genetic lab for his own nefarious purposes? Or...