PDA

View Full Version : Returning Wholeheartedly to Second Edition



Gen.Steiner
15-01-2012, 18:44
I have recently taken the decision to ditch all my 40K stuff that isn't compatible with 2nd Edition - with the exception of my Dark Eldar, which will be an army that I will take with me through all future editions of 40K - in order to not only reduce the size of my collection but to enable me to bring the joy of 2nd Edition to others!

In doing so, I have rediscovered many lovely things that I had forgotten, such as smaller armies, electro-priests, and Mk 1 plasma weaponry.

I'm starting this thread to gauge people's reactions to this heroic decision to return to what I consider the finest edition of 40K yet published.

Now - I'm off to write some more Stillmanite army lists and roll some Sustained Fire dice!

Veteran Sergeant
15-01-2012, 18:51
I agree. I went back through my 2nd Edition rulebook recently and remembered what made it the single best edition. It wasn't perfect, but it was a better, more solid game. It just needs some tweaks to make it a little better, and can't support large point values without becoming time consuming. I've been tempted to make a 2.5 Edition ruleset that takes 3rd+'s streamlined psychics rules and AP values vs save modifiers but keeps the much more solid and in-depth rules of 2nd Edition. Later editions of 40K slowly but surely creeped into the "roll lots of dice, remove lots of models" mentality that was certainly a better business decision for Games Workshop (since you need to have a lot of models to remove a lot of them, lol), but not a better gaming experience unless, I guess, you have no patience.

hive fleet aphopis
15-01-2012, 20:52
appartenly 6th ed is supposed to be much like 2nd ed

Battleworthy Arts
15-01-2012, 21:01
Meh.

It seems a lot of folks are dedicated to looking at 2nd ed through rose colored glasses. There's much of it I don't miss. The parry rule lead to the ridiculous 2 sword armed assault marine... the strategy cards were ridiculous, save mods are tied too much to strength... the current system allows for more variation between weapons... the list goes on. Virus bomb? Talk about broken crap... it's fine for nostalgia, but second edition definitely had its major flaws.

stroller
15-01-2012, 21:09
I'm with battle on this one.

Had warseer been around then I'm sure there would be posts about virus bomb is soooooooo broooooken - why cant we have RT instead of this rubbish - how dare GW try to MAKE MONEY - plastic? whats wrong with good old lead - 2nd had its good points but by no means was it perfect.

Gen.Steiner
15-01-2012, 21:42
Never said it was perfect - just that it was the best. Don't forget, GW very quickly said "tear up your virus grenade/outbreak cards"!

And, when played in the spirit it was intended - to tell stories - it works wonderfully. Of course you can have uber-characters, but it's much more fun not to. And as there are no whining whinging WAAC numpties playing 2nd edition any more - I can dictate my own meta game. ;)

So the main problems with 2nd Edition are removed, pleasantly and calmly. Yes you can have a twin-sword wielding assault Marine, but why would you? Perhaps one. Maybe he is the Chapter's pre-eminent duellist.

At any rate, 2nd tells beautiful stories. Ichar IV. Ghazghkull. Piscina. All of these were written into the background following real games of 2nd edition. Who remembers Abaddon assaulting an Ork village to get hold of a mad Mek for his black crusade - and teleport assaulting onto the wrong side of the river, spending the entire game surrounded by his elite Terminator bodyguard killing Grots whilst his men struggled with Orks galore? And so on and so on.

AndrewGPaul
15-01-2012, 21:49
I have recently taken the decision to ditch all my 40K stuff that isn't compatible with 2nd Edition - with the exception of my Dark Eldar, which will be an army that I will take with me through all future editions of 40K - in order to not only reduce the size of my collection but to enable me to bring the joy of 2nd Edition to others!

I think I'd rather write rules for using the new stuff in 2nd edition, rather than get rid of stuff, but each to his own.

Surely it's mk2 plasma weaponry that you're going to be rediscovering - 3rd edition's get's hot rule is the same as the rule for Chaos plasma guns in 2nd.

AndrewGPaul
15-01-2012, 21:50
I think the "unbalanced" nature of 2nd edition is its strength - it forces the players to actually talk about the sort of game they want to play, rather than simply following the formula by rote without any sort of agreement between the players as to what they want to achieve.

Chem-Dog
15-01-2012, 22:07
I'm starting this thread to gauge people's reactions to this heroic decision to return to what I consider the finest edition of 40K yet published.

My reaction: Good on ya. I'm firmly of the opinion that 2nd ed was far more fun to play and I'm a "for fun" type of player. If I could find a significant enough group of people to play 2nd Ed with me I would probably do likewise. Well. I wouldn't dump 40K Xth edition but I'd definitely run both, possibly with a separate set of armies for both.

The only real problem, for me, with using 2nd Ed is the metric heck-load of awesome models that have been released since that have never had a 2nd Ed stat, I'd want to try and include all of those which would require writing half a dozen codexes, at the very least :eek:


Never said it was perfect - just that it was the best. Don't forget, GW very quickly said "tear up your virus grenade/outbreak cards"!

More than that, Andy Chambers actually apologised for it. Ahhh, halcyon days.

dangerboyjim
15-01-2012, 22:09
It's like vintage video games.

We remeber them fondly, but at the end of the day, you can have a nice afternoon play (insert fondly remembered retro game here) but you know it's not as good as (recently released triple-A game of the same genre)

Personally I don't know what the whining is about, the hobby has always been expensive and had some unexpectedly broken things in it. From about IG onwards I think they've been getting a hell of a lot more right than they have wrong. (WD codexes aside... please let the Black Templars get a proper codex)

Although the game has moved away from a skirmish game, it would be nice if there were some Necromunda type rules for much smaller battles.

Grimbad
15-01-2012, 23:10
I'm starting this thread to gauge people's reactions to this heroic decision to return to what I consider the finest edition of 40K yet published.


Positive reaction here. I've not gone so far as to ditch everything incompatible, but at this point I'm pretty certain that I'll stick with 2nd, unless 6th is seriously impressive and playable at skirmish scale.

And it's not nostalgia- I didn't start playing 40k until the 4th edition rulebook came out. The narrative elements of second edition are simply more valuable to me than the occasional clunky rules are deterrent. And they really aren't all that clunky. Sometimes I have no idea what people are talking about when they criticize the system.

Battleworthy Arts
15-01-2012, 23:18
It's like vintage video games.

We remeber them fondly, but at the end of the day, you can have a nice afternoon play (insert fondly remembered retro game here) but you know it's not as good as (recently released triple-A game of the same genre)

Personally I don't know what the whining is about, the hobby has always been expensive and had some unexpectedly broken things in it. From about IG onwards I think they've been getting a hell of a lot more right than they have wrong. (WD codexes aside... please let the Black Templars get a proper codex)



I agree... are people forgetting about the imperial assassin in terminator armor with polymorphine and vortex grenade? The flying high rule? Whole armies never moving because of overwatch? Whole units of assault marines armed with two swords... not a pistol in sight?

The beauty of 2nd edition is that there were no internet forums and few tournaments... no "Meta".... just you and your buddies. Try apocalypse if that's what you like about 2nd... its the same sandbox, you and your buds decide what is and isn't ok.

madprophet
15-01-2012, 23:49
Hey, if you and your mates like 2nd edition - rock on! It has it's good points to be sure, but I like the direction they have taken the game. 40k, as is, is a company level wargame.

I like the large armies (fielding a full company of Imperial Guards) more than skirmish type games. If I want to play skirmish level, I like Necromunda as a rules basis - also Death Squads (40k version of Mordhiem) isn't bad. Necromunda is a skirmish level game, it is well suited to squad-level combat. It can be expanded up to Platoon level with a little work.

For battalion level or higher level gaming, I would go with Epic - but you could use Apocalypse if you have a large enough gaming space to accommodate it.

Grimbad
15-01-2012, 23:53
I agree... are people forgetting about the imperial assassin in terminator armor with polymorphine and vortex grenade? The flying high rule? Whole armies never moving because of overwatch? Whole units of assault marines armed with two swords... not a pistol in sight?


I still can't understand how anyone could bring themselves to wast even one turn - an entire quarter of the game- in an overwatch stand off. That's a bad decision on the part of both players. Don't you have missions to pursue?

That terminator assassin can show up, and can throw its vortex grenade, sure, which will have an entirely unpredictable effect. Then any reasonable player can tie it down in hand-to-hand with a single model per turn for the remainder of the game, making the rest of the model a waste of points - the same technique that defeats any melee supercharacter in second edition, and which is impossible in later editions. And, as you said, then as now it's up to the player group in 2nd edition to draw the line against ridiculous crap. None of my friends have used anything like that, although we're all aware of the possibility, because none of us want to play nonsense games. There's far more interesting combinations of wargear for the Imperial Assassin, which is what makes the Imperial Assassin so much fun- not being able to field a superweapon, but being able to field a very skilled model armed with whatever outlandish wargear you want.

I've never heard of the two-sword assault squad as a major problem with 2nd edition before, and never really considered it because pistols are more attractive, but it seems like a decent, inexpensive loadout and I really don't see a problem with it.

spaint2k
16-01-2012, 01:08
I agree... are people forgetting about the imperial assassin in terminator armor with polymorphine and vortex grenade? The flying high rule? Whole armies never moving because of overwatch? Whole units of assault marines armed with two swords... not a pistol in sight?

Never saw an imperial assassin in terminator armour once.
Vortex grenades were as likely to move into your own army as the enemy's.
Flying high usually resulted in the Eldar player forgetting to bring his swooping hawks back on to the table for the entire game.
We never once set an entire army on overwatch - how do you complete your mission if you're doing that?
Our optimal assault marine loadout was a power sword and power fist. :D


The beauty of 2nd edition is that there were no internet forums and few tournaments... no "Meta".... just you and your buddies. Try apocalypse if that's what you like about 2nd... its the same sandbox, you and your buds decide what is and isn't ok.

Except that Apocalypse is incredibly dull. Mountains of miniatures on the table means that there's no manoeuvring to speak of, super-heavy vehicles remove entire units at a time, negating the point of having painted them in the first place, and turns take so long that I could go and cook a meal while my opponents play their turn one. In fact, I went out for lunch and coffee during my opponents' turn once and they weren't done by the time I got back.

As to your point about it being a sandbox, I completely fail to see the utility of a "rule"book whose only rule is essentially "put whatever you like on the table". I can do that without a book.

chromedog
16-01-2012, 01:34
From the leaks, I'd say it's closer to the truth to say that they are bringing ELEMENTS of 2nd ed back - NOT the whole thing.
I can see specific units with some of the tiresome 2nd ed rules (overwatch) - just like certain units now are able to DS and assault, for example.

Changing up the turn sequence would also change the game enough (Movement, Assault THEN Shooting).

They already have by resurrecting certain special characters and hardware that hasn't been seen since 2nd ed (The Thunderfire cannon is the bastard-offspring of a mole mortar and Thudd gun, after all).

fluffstalker
16-01-2012, 02:41
Never saw an imperial assassin in terminator armour once.
Vortex grenades were as likely to move into your own army as the enemy's.
Flying high usually resulted in the Eldar player forgetting to bring his swooping hawks back on to the table for the entire game.
We never once set an entire army on overwatch - how do you complete your mission if you're doing that?
Our optimal assault marine loadout was a power sword and power fist. :D



Except that Apocalypse is incredibly dull. Mountains of miniatures on the table means that there's no manoeuvring to speak of, super-heavy vehicles remove entire units at a time, negating the point of having painted them in the first place, and turns take so long that I could go and cook a meal while my opponents play their turn one. In fact, I went out for lunch and coffee during my opponents' turn once and they weren't done by the time I got back.

As to your point about it being a sandbox, I completely fail to see the utility of a "rule"book whose only rule is essentially "put whatever you like on the table". I can do that without a book.

I completely agree with your view on Apoc. The only time I found Apoc games fun where when they were those massive, official GW or blogger campaign affairs that other people do and you read about from afar and thus get to skip the five hour long turns. Then it's sort of like a 40k movie, rather than a tedious and brainless exercise in chucking templates and march orders.

Chem-Dog
16-01-2012, 03:37
I agree... are people forgetting about the imperial assassin in terminator armor with polymorphine and vortex grenade?

Never EVER saw it, and it became redundant the second we got our sticky mits on Codex: Assassins anyway. I did manage to get an Eversor Assassin equipped with the Mask of Jain Zhar once thanks to a Strategy card though :D


Whole armies never moving because of overwatch?

It's power wasn't all that great to be honest, the inherent modifier to hit anything you were shooting at whilst in over-watch and the fact that your opponent knew you were in over watch so was probably moving as fast as possible to stack on the -to hit mods.


Whole units of assault marines armed with two swords... not a pistol in sight?

Again not something I ever saw. And to be honest, pistols had the range to do some damage to units you couldn't (or didn't want to) charge.

Sometimes when I encounter threads discussing 2nd Ed, I wonder if a shady group of WAAC players have travelled back in time to use their rules lawyering kung-fu on players of a more innocent time....



The beauty of 2nd edition is that there were no internet forums and few tournaments... no "Meta".... just you and your buddies.


This was a huge part of it, yes. But even then I would occasionally make the fairly lengthy journey (bus journey of roughly 30 mins, and parents who weren't too fond of me going to a different town by myself) to my local GW and play just as well against players there.




I've never heard of the two-sword assault squad as a major problem with 2nd edition before, and never really considered it because pistols are more attractive, but it seems like a decent, inexpensive loadout and I really don't see a problem with it.

Think a lot of the "problem" with dual swords is the dual Parry you get along side it, each model in a squad having the option to force a re-roll on your opponents best dice (and negate any Parry they have) is potentially fairly powerful.
For those who don't know, combat was resolved by adding Ws to your single highest roll. Multiple sixes (after the first) added a single point to your score and any ones you rolled deducted a single point (fumble) there were also a few modifiers you could take advantage of (like +1 for charging). The highest score won and the number of hits was decided by the difference in each model's score, so a model with multiple attacks who was able to force you to re-roll your best roll (and thus potentially reduce your combat score considerably) whilst avoiding your own parries (they cancelled each other out) could be quite powerful.


From the leaks, I'd say it's closer to the truth to say that they are bringing ELEMENTS of 2nd ed back - NOT the whole thing.
I can see specific units with some of the tiresome 2nd ed rules (overwatch) - just like certain units now are able to DS and assault, for example.

Over-watch isn't all that. Back then it was an automatic -1 to hit mod, it prohibited the use of certain weapons and required the sacrifice of an entire round of shooting to activate it.
If the "leaks" are any indication of the way things are going I can see a unit using over-watch having some kind of penalty. And then there's dispersion shields.......

Spell_of_Destruction
16-01-2012, 04:01
Criticisms of 2nd ed inevitably focus on the broken combos and wargear. "lolz how could you enjoy that crap? My army always died on the first turn to virus grenade". Yes the game needed a revamp. I'm not sure that it needed 3rd edition though. Some of the changes were positive and needed but many of them changed the game for the worse IMO.

I don't want to go back to 2nd edition - I want a game with 3rd-5th ed's streamlining and 2nd ed's depth. The 'leaked' 6th ed PDF isn't a million miles away.

And the retro games comparison is pants too (no offence). There are plenty of retro games which are timeless and just plain better than the formulaic crap that gets churned out now.

RBLFunk
16-01-2012, 05:48
The -1 to hit modifier on overwatch was only for targets emerging from or entering cover or charging the shooter.
I don't get the complaints about overwatch, it's just a more simulationist rule.

I agree with Spell_of_Destruction, criticisms of 2nd edition usually consist of citing a few extreme examples of broken details. Most of 2nd edition's core mechanics were great, they were a very sound foundation that a good game could have been built on. It's a shame they were discarded in favour of convoluted gamist garbage.

The leaked 6th edition 40K file is 129 pages of text and spaces for diagrams.
The 2nd edition rulebook is 98 pages with illustrations and blocks of background text throughout, and 23 of those 98 pages are full page illustrations. That's less than 75 pages of core rules.

2nd edition was a bad game. 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th are as bad or worse in different ways. The big difference is that 2nd edition is easy to modify into something really good.

Hellebore
16-01-2012, 07:36
There are only a few things I would change in 2nd ed.

Close combat, specific wargear combos/abuses, reducing save modifiers to allow armour more of an affect and how BS works. But several of those apply to any edition of the game, not just 2nd ed.

Apart from that I think it's a fairly good rule set. CC really needed an overhaul IMO because it wasn't suited to unit combats but rather individual duels. Has very little effect in necromunda, but two squads fighting each other slowed down quite a lot.

This was just a case of the pendulum swinging too far in the wrong direction. Overcompensation is a common reaction to anything. 2nd ed isn't perfect, but it didn't need to be completely changed into 3rd ed to be fixed.

Hellebore

RBLFunk
16-01-2012, 08:19
Hellebore, could you be specific about what you would change? Particularly what you'd do with save mods and BS because I've not heard suggestions on those areas before.

The close combat system was one of my favourite parts of 2nd edition. It's one of the things I often hear complained about, largely because it is, or can be, relatively slow to resolve since each model's fighting is resolved individually. But that's what I like about it, every model gets a chance to actively defend itself.

I've seen people try to implement 'rolling to hit with attacks' style close combat in 2nd edition but never with success. You can't just change it to that sort of system without recalibrating all of the close combat weapons as well. When almost everyone's hitting at their basic strength of 3 or 4 in close combat like in Fantasy or 3rd+ edition 40K it can work because there's a decent chance at least some of the enemy will survive to fight back. But when close combat troops are armed with weapons that hit at strength 5 or 6 or 8, and reduce or negate armour saves, whoever gets to strike first wins every time.

insectum7
16-01-2012, 08:27
It's power wasn't all that great to be honest, the inherent modifier to hit anything you were shooting at whilst in over-watch and the fact that your opponent knew you were in over watch so was probably moving as fast as possible to stack on the -to hit mods.
. . .
Over-watch isn't all that. Back then it was an automatic -1 to hit mod, it prohibited the use of certain weapons and required the sacrifice of an entire round of shooting to activate it.
If the "leaks" are any indication of the way things are going I can see a unit using over-watch having some kind of penalty. And then there's dispersion shields.......

I specifically remember winning tournaments with overwatch heavy tactics. In fact I had an army that went 20 and 0 before I retired it, and it relied HEAVILY on overwatch. Marine heavy weapons came with targeters, which effectivly negated the -1. Dreadnoughts had a BS of 6 and a targeter, so it took quite a few modifiers to force a low hit probablity.

I never saw the Terminator Armored Assassin either, but I saw a lot of other things close enough, or worse.

2nd is a fun game, but it had the same problems with unit balance and choice as every version since, maybe even worse. If you're in a gaming group that can keep a lid on the craziness, it's great. If you're playing for narration, yeah, it's very good at that, definitely better than 3rd-5th. My honest feeling though is that if the rules and codexes of 2nd broke out in popularity, the cries of OMGbroken would follow suit.

I prefer the core rules of the 3rd-era switch onward besides, for various reasons. I also like being able to go to a club and get a pick up game. But if you can get what you want out of 2nd, that's great.

Hellebore
16-01-2012, 08:46
Hellebore, could you be specific about what you would change? Particularly what you'd do with save mods and BS because I've not heard suggestions on those areas before.

The close combat system was one of my favourite parts of 2nd edition. It's one of the things I often hear complained about, largely because it is, or can be, relatively slow to resolve since each model's fighting is resolved individually. But that's what I like about it, every model gets a chance to actively defend itself.

I've seen people try to implement 'rolling to hit with attacks' style close combat in 2nd edition but never with success. You can't just change it to that sort of system without recalibrating all of the close combat weapons as well. When almost everyone's hitting at their basic strength of 3 or 4 in close combat like in Fantasy or 3rd+ edition 40K it can work because there's a decent chance at least some of the enemy will survive to fight back. But when close combat troops are armed with weapons that hit at strength 5 or 6 or 8, and reduce or negate armour saves, whoever gets to strike first wins every time.


initiative unfortunately was virtually the least important stat in the game because it only came in on very rare occasions like ties or dex tests. If it got used in melee more often and/or vs BS tests it would become as important as the other stats.

For save modifiers I'd just reduce them across the board; off the cuff reduce everything by 1. Nothing too complicated. You could do the same thing by increasing all armour saves by 1 (power armour =2+). Whilst i like ASM I think that they were too ubiquitous and too high to allow armour to play much of a role. Guardsmen almost never got an armour save and marines only had a 50% chance of success even against basic infantry guns.

BS is a pet annoyance of mine. Pretty much every single roll made in GW games is opposed to something else, WS vs WS, S vs T etc. Yet BS is not opposed to anything and is simply a basic roll. It means that the target has no real effect on the shot (except through sparing modifiers for moving at high speeds that few models could actually produce) and that the firer's BS becomes virtually meaningless past 6 - guns with high bonuses also made it fairly redundant. 2nd ed did at least have some semblence of scale as it used modifiers, but if there were no modifiers then someone with BS10 had the same chance of hitting as someone with BS5 which just looks wrong.

Of course a lot of this can be put down to the game using a 1-10 scale rolled on D6s which cuts the variation down.

As I said, a lot of my problems with it also occur in every othe edition of the game as well. BS is still not an opposed roll. Even the proposed 6th ed 'leak' with Evasion only goes so far because it doesn't give each target its own score, it's down to unit type so an ork and a harlequin are just as easy to hit.

I don't see why you couldn't turn shooting into a ranged form of the melee rules - roll a D6 per attack per model against the opposing target and add them to the shooter's BS (additional 6s +1 etc), targets do the same and add to their I. If shooter wins they hit a target, if target wins they've evaded the shot. Suddenly both BS and I have more relevance

I didn't like that each model in a unit could fight multiple targets regardless of their attacks, it just seemed odd and also increased the length of time the combat took. Attacks = number of opponents you can hit works better IMO.

In the above concepts I suppose Attacks takes on more of an 'Actions' roll, dictating how good you are at melee, shooting and dodging combined with WS, BS and I.

Hellebore

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 09:53
I note that at least one complaint about Overwatch came from a tournament player. ;)

2nd Edition is more of a narrative game than a competitive one, I feel. When all parties to it approach it in that manner then it really does produce a wonderful game which is easy to enjoy and easy to learn.

As for Hellebore's ideas - I think you'd probably quite enjoy Stargrunt II and/or Tomorrow's War. :)

Helicon_One
16-01-2012, 10:10
I think you'd have a lot more fun playing a Necromunda campaign, since that game was essentially 2nd Ed 40K played at the scale the ruleset worked best at and with most of the broken nonsense trimmed away.

But hey, if you can round up enough opponents to give your group critical mass and figure out ways to sidestep all the flawed aspects of 2nd Ed, then go nuts.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 10:38
I think I'd rather write rules for using the new stuff in 2nd edition, rather than get rid of stuff, but each to his own.

Too much effort really, and - let's be honest - in a reinforced platoon level skirmish game, do I really need a Hydra flak tank, Scorpion super-heavy, or Traitor Titan? :p

If I really want to play with funky new stuff I've always got my cityfight Guard or Dark Eldar to mess around with in 5th, 6th, 7th editions... and on into the forseeable future. ;)


Surely it's mk2 plasma weaponry that you're going to be rediscovering - 3rd edition's get's hot rule is the same as the rule for Chaos plasma guns in 2nd.

Yes, indeed. Woops!


I think you'd have a lot more fun playing a Necromunda campaign, since that game was essentially 2nd Ed 40K played at the scale the ruleset worked best at and with most of the broken nonsense trimmed away.

Oh, I play Necromunda too. In fact I've had more games of Necromunda than 5th edition 40K during the whole existence of 5th Edition!

AndrewGPaul
16-01-2012, 11:07
I note that at least one complaint about Overwatch came from a tournament player. ;)

2nd Edition is more of a narrative game than a competitive one, I feel. When all parties to it approach it in that manner then it really does produce a wonderful game which is easy to enjoy and easy to learn.

My thought exactly. Modern 40K has moved towards a mindset where two total strangers can meet over a table and play a game of 40K without any prior communication. Personally, I find that a rather dry and boring way of doing things, and it means that weird and potentially "overpowered" rules, situations or models are forced out the game. If you instead speak to your opponent before the game to sort out the sort of things which may concern you during a game - terrain density and type, armies, specific force lists, the scenario, etc, then external balance becomes much more irrelevant. For some reason, the player base and GW seemed more open to that in the mid 90s than now.


Too much effort really, and - let's be honest - in a reinforced platoon level skirmish game, do I really need a Hydra flak tank, Scorpion super-heavy, or Traitor Titan? :p

Depends. There are 2nd edition stats for the Baneblade and Shadowsword out there, in Citadel Journals - turns out, they're not that powerful if a squad of Wraithguard fires mini warp portals right into the driver's seat. :(. As for the Hydra, well, I would think that a Hydra emplacement or AAA tanks in column would more likely be the scenario objective than simply a part of the army.

However, I was really thinking of things like the Scout Land Speeder, the scout cars the Elysians get, and of course pretty much anything Tau, Dark Eldar or Necron. Personally, I'd simply make Dark Eldar splinter weapons Shuriken weapons, and other similar substitutions. After all, in 2nd edition, most weapons were generic - Orks used bolters and Eldar used meltaguns and lasguns.

Hellebore
16-01-2012, 11:26
However, I was really thinking of things like the Scout Land Speeder, the scout cars the Elysians get, and of course pretty much anything Tau, Dark Eldar or Necron. Personally, I'd simply make Dark Eldar splinter weapons Shuriken weapons, and other similar substitutions. After all, in 2nd edition, most weapons were generic - Orks used bolters and Eldar used meltaguns and lasguns.

As easy as that is, with 2nd ed especially I find it boring. With all that potential for interesting stuff I'd like to see splinter weapons as more than just shuriken catapults. There were poison rules like the needler etc that would be interesting to see.

the game being more roleplaying lends itself to creating interesting stuff, especially if as you and the good general say, players should be agreeing to a good game ahead of time.

It would be pretty simple to convert all the post 2nd ed armies to 2nd ed really. I've been thinking that Tau should be M3, partly for thematic reasons, partly because apart from the squats there just aren't M3 units in the game.

Hellebore

Narf
16-01-2012, 11:30
The thing i miss about 2nd was teh customisation, the fact that there were 100's of wargear cards, CCW's, and guns, that meant that you could effectivly theme a character, unit or army differently.

For instance i used to run a wolf lord with the hood of darkness, power fist, conversion field, and sometimes frenzon, and then a load of scouts.

Each scout could have its own weapons combination, including shotguns, autocannons, ax's to power ax's.

The fact that not only the game has more storyline as a whole, but that each battle you fought you ended up with hero's winning from impossible odd's and creating an entire universe for your army. it created individuality and the mechanics forced you to understand very basic maths (trust me its basic, but GW decided it were to complex). The high points cost/low model count meant you ended up facing painted army's more often than not.

I don't feel that this happens now, as items are generic for characters, and block bought for units, an army is generally just a cookie cutter version of a block of points repeated over and over again, with no individuality, there is no maths involved, and how many people have faced the "unknown" grey's across the table from them?

What i would love to see would be a 40k 2ed redux, a sort of advanced game taking parts from both era's of 40k (as really there are only two RT/2ed & 3rd/4th/5th)

You would keep the idea of wargear cards, and individual weaponry, you would keep modifiers to hit, and save (but with reductions to the negatives), give vehicles more armour, and work out a decent armour penertration/damage chart. Keep hidden, overwatch rules.

Bring to the game the phases system (move/shoot/assault) allow characters (including squad leaders) to fight two ways, against other characters - challenge (as per 2ed rules for combat) against mooks use the current edition rules.

I'd make power weapons allow saves, but drastically restricted say -2 for sword, -3 for ax, -4 fist.

And since we have gotten rid of cover (it now is a modifier to hit) allow dual saves (ie armour and field)

but thats just my view


(p.s get rid of instant death and bring back d3,d4,d6,d8,d10,12,d20 wound rolls)

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 11:35
As easy as that is, with 2nd ed especially I find it boring. With all that potential for interesting stuff I'd like to see splinter weapons as more than just shuriken catapults. There were poison rules like the needler etc that would be interesting to see ... It would be pretty simple to convert all the post 2nd ed armies to 2nd ed really. I've been thinking that Tau should be M3, partly for thematic reasons, partly because apart from the squats there just aren't M3 units in the game.

It wouldn't be difficult, per se, and it may well be something that I turn to in the future. Certainly Tau at M3 I can understand - and it gives the Kroot (M5?) another role in their army.

Necrons have rules already - albeit for Warriors, Lords, Destroyers and Scarabs only - which suit me fine, and as for Dark Eldar, well... Poisoned Shuricats anyone? Banshees without the Mask as Wyches?

Things like the Goliath demolition vehicle would be fun to port back in time, too.

AndrewGPaul
16-01-2012, 11:52
As easy as that is, with 2nd ed especially I find it boring. With all that potential for interesting stuff I'd like to see splinter weapons as more than just shuriken catapults. There were poison rules like the needler etc that would be interesting to see.

I forgot that 5th edition Dark Eldar all have poisonous splinter rifles now. I was thinking of the 3rd edition ones, where splinter rifles weren't really any different, fluff-wise, to shuriken weapons. Obviously the more esoteric Dark Eldar weapons should have their own rules, and wth the increased number of templates and the possibility of having variable damage and continuous effects there's more scope for stuff like that.

Hellebore
16-01-2012, 12:03
Well even in the 3rd ed codex in the weapon fluff it said they were 'often impregnated with toxic substances' which is why so many fan rules wanted to give them poisoned weapons.

The tau would be fairly straightforward as nothing of their stuff is really abnormal. Certainly all their battlesuit equipment would be great fodder for 2nd ed rules.

EDIT: As part of the ASM changes I would make all basic melee attacks have 0 ASM, so fists, swords etc. Only something with natural weapons (tyranids, daemons etc) would use their strength to determine ASM and of course high tech/psychic/daemonic weapons from chainswords upwards. They had a defacto 'primitive' condition for bows and handbows whereby good armour was increased when hit (4+ goes to 2+), yet nothing for basic knives etc. I'd just chuck this altogether and say that if the weapon is primitive (all knives, swords, axes, fists etc) then it offers no save modifier. This would separate out chainswords from normal swords more, especially when wielded by stronger individuals.

Hellebore

totgeboren
16-01-2012, 15:06
I would advice you to hold on to your collection until 6:ed hits. Considering how GW are going all retro, a more 2:ed feel is not out of the question, and if the 'leak' is anything to go by, it will play much like 2:ed, only much better.

I personally think you are committing a huge mistake if saying "only 2:ed for now on", because you lose out on all new things, and you lose out on a lot of new opponents.
(Oh, I read later that you do intend to keep a bunch of 5:ed stuff for those sorts of games.)

And as I have mentioned in other threads, my return to 2:ed totally changed my mind about it. I was remembering it as the most awesome and cool version of 40k ever, but after playing it, I realised it was just me being 12 years old.
The rules actually sucked for anything Not narrative. Both players really needed to be on the same playing field for the game to be any fun (EDIT: Any fun at all! To clarify, it is easier to be on different levels in 2:ed than any later edition, and as AndrewGPaul points out below, being on the same level is very important for any game).

The only thing it has over 5:ed is that it's more fun making your characters. Other than that, I would say 5:ed is better in just about every way, and 6:ed seems to be much better than 5:ed so...

And regarding Necromunda, there we have a system that the 2:ed mechanics are suited for. But if you have played alot of necromunda, you will have realised the game breaks down pretty fast with advances in BS. When someone plomps down a BS5 Marksman, you know the campaign is just about over.
In 2:ed, you both can use models that are much better than the system is designed for from the start, and the gameplay reflects that.

I don't like it at all, and the psychic phase just ruins 2:ed for me. I would much rather play necromunda given the choice.

AndrewGPaul
16-01-2012, 15:08
Both players really needed to be on the same playing field for the game to be any fun.

Pretty sure that's the case for any game. It's just that 2nd edition 40K is less tolerant of the players not being in alignment than later editions.

RBLFunk
16-01-2012, 17:26
There have been community efforts to make 2nd edition Tau and Dark Eldar codexes. The last time I found a Tau one I was surprised to find it contained a bunch of rules and formatting of mine barely changed, from stuff I wrote the better part of a decade ago.


initiative unfortunately was virtually the least important stat in the game because it only came in on very rare occasions like ties or dex tests. If it got used in melee more often and/or vs BS tests it would become as important as the other stats.I agree, but if it's used too much troops with low initiatives, that weren't written with extensive initiative rules in mind, will suffer a lot, and units with high initiative may receive too much of a boost. 2nd edition's ramming rules were arguably very broken vs. Orks already.


For save modifiers I'd just reduce them across the board; off the cuff reduce everything by 1. Nothing too complicated. You could do the same thing by increasing all armour saves by 1 (power armour =2+). Whilst i like ASM I think that they were too ubiquitous and too high to allow armour to play much of a role. Guardsmen almost never got an armour save and marines only had a 50% chance of success even against basic infantry guns.I thoroughly agree that save modifiers were far too prevalent, especially amongst basic weapons. Even a lasgun reduces power armour to a 4+ save.
In the version of 40K I play based on 2nd edition, bolt guns and pulse rifles are two of the few basic weapons that have a save modifier.


BS is a pet annoyance of mine. Pretty much every single roll made in GW games is opposed to something else, WS vs WS, S vs T etc. Yet BS is not opposed to anything and is simply a basic roll. It means that the target has no real effect on the shot (except through sparing modifiers for moving at high speeds that few models could actually produce) and that the firer's BS becomes virtually meaningless past 6 - guns with high bonuses also made it fairly redundant. 2nd ed did at least have some semblence of scale as it used modifiers, but if there were no modifiers then someone with BS10 had the same chance of hitting as someone with BS5 which just looks wrong.Here I disagree. 2nd edition has a great system of modifiers in place that mean that your to hit roll rarely goes unmodified or unopposed by some contributing factor, often due to what your target is and what it's doing.
I think implementing an agility or evasion stat would be a fairly convoluted and gamist way of implementing something that I think already works really well, or at least has the potential to work really well if slightly better calibrated.
All Eldar units I can think of can already make themselves harder to hit just by running or charging 10". Harlequins have holosuits that make them harder to hit again.
If you want a unit's evasion ability to be improved, there are pretty easy ways to do it with abilities or equipment that increase to hit modifiers or give a dodge save.

The problem of meaninglessly high BS stats is one of calibration. As soon as you go beyond basic troops, WS and BS stats get too high too quickly in 2nd edition.


I didn't like that each model in a unit could fight multiple targets regardless of their attacks, it just seemed odd and also increased the length of time the combat took. Attacks = number of opponents you can hit works better IMO.I think this may be a flaw, but one that has its advantages too. The multiple combat modifiers allow for powerful units to be overwhelmed by numerous weak units, and for decisive victories against outnumbered outmatched inferior units.


EDIT: As part of the ASM changes I would make all basic melee attacks have 0 ASM, so fists, swords etc. Only something with natural weapons (tyranids, daemons etc) would use their strength to determine ASM and of course high tech/psychic/daemonic weapons from chainswords upwards. They had a defacto 'primitive' condition for bows and handbows whereby good armour was increased when hit (4+ goes to 2+), yet nothing for basic knives etc. I'd just chuck this altogether and say that if the weapon is primitive (all knives, swords, axes, fists etc) then it offers no save modifier. This would separate out chainswords from normal swords more, especially when wielded by stronger individuals.I don't think this would be very useful, unless you make pistols unable to hit with their stats in close combat, which would be gamist, verbose, generic, and potentially harmful to models/units not created for the 2nd edition rules. Units tend to either have pistols that hit at strength 4 with a -1 or -2 save modifier, or they have no pistol or a pistol that hits no harder than their basic strength of 3 with no save modifier anyway.

Coasty
16-01-2012, 17:42
I'm still trying to teach the wife about 2nd ed.

I may have to resort to agreeing to play WHFB in exchange...

Chem-Dog
16-01-2012, 19:53
The -1 to hit modifier on overwatch was only for targets emerging from or entering cover or charging the shooter.

Fair enough. I have to say I only ever ended up using it when I couldn't see an enemy that I was certain would be coming at me [/Imperial Guard]



I specifically remember winning tournaments with overwatch heavy tactics.

Therein lies the problem ;)

Hellebore
16-01-2012, 22:58
I agree, but if it's used too much troops with low initiatives, that weren't written with extensive initiative rules in mind, will suffer a lot, and units with high initiative may receive too much of a boost. 2nd edition's ramming rules were arguably very broken vs. Orks already.

That's why the suggestion of using the combat rules was made. There you get a D6 to modify your stat, which provides a potentially wider range than the S vs T mechanic where you can only vary 2 up or down. high initiative creatures can roll low scores, low initiative creatures can roll high scores and then there's the modifiers of which there would be more than in melee.



I thoroughly agree that save modifiers were far too prevalent, especially amongst basic weapons. Even a lasgun reduces power armour to a 4+ save.
In the version of 40K I play based on 2nd edition, bolt guns and pulse rifles are two of the few basic weapons that have a save modifier.


I would assume and/or hope that the catapult had one. It did have the best ASM of all basic infantry weapons in 40k, it would seem odd to nerf it and then artificially boost others.



Here I disagree. 2nd edition has a great system of modifiers in place that mean that your to hit roll rarely goes unmodified or unopposed by some contributing factor, often due to what your target is and what it's doing.
I think implementing an agility or evasion stat would be a fairly convoluted and gamist way of implementing something that I think already works really well, or at least has the potential to work really well if slightly better calibrated.
All Eldar units I can think of can already make themselves harder to hit just by running or charging 10". Harlequins have holosuits that make them harder to hit again.
If you want a unit's evasion ability to be improved, there are pretty easy ways to do it with abilities or equipment that increase to hit modifiers or give a dodge save.

The problem of meaninglessly high BS stats is one of calibration. As soon as you go beyond basic troops, WS and BS stats get too high too quickly in 2nd edition.


The eldar needed to move exactly 10" to get that modifier. Only Harlequins could actually exceed 10". You begin to overshoot when you are trying to conform to that rule to get the advantage. It makes the force work in an unwieldy way.

Although I do think the stats got too high too quickly, my problem was that the high stats weren't dealt with properly in general. Good rules shouldn't have to limit or change the spread of stats as the numbers go higher just to allow them to work. As I said a lot of this was because they used 1-10 with a D6 and is true of other editions too.

The game was modifier happy, I suppose in an effort to balance the fact that there was a lot of BS higher than 5, especially with the plethora of targeters handed out. But I don't think it really needed that many. Certainly if they used a BS system that could deal with small and high numbers equally they wouldn't need so many modifiers.

I think you're mistaken by claiming 'evasion' is gamist. When shooting at a person your skill with the gun isn't the only factor involved. I think the BS system as it was was far more gameist as it abstractified your shooting. What I liked about their combat and SvsT mechanics was that they were actually pitted against a logical opposing stat. The BS rules would be like making Melee you rolling to hit using your WS and ignoring the fact that your opponent was a highly skilled swordsman.

I personally didn't like the sheer number of to hit modifiers each gun had, especially most pistols getting +2 at short range. This really screwed with the already lopsided BS system and made low BS models shoot like champions even with any negative modifiers that might come into it.



I think this may be a flaw, but one that has its advantages too. The multiple combat modifiers allow for powerful units to be overwhelmed by numerous weak units, and for decisive victories against outnumbered outmatched inferior units.


It would still work that way. One character fighting 6 individuals can only attack a number of them equal to his attacks, so generally 3. All of those 6 enemies can still attack the character, but that's the only model they can attack because they only have 1 attack. Outnumbered inferior units would be even more toast because if there are 4 of them and 8 of the enemy, they can only hit 4 of the enemy whilst the enemy can gang up on them two to a model.



I don't think this would be very useful, unless you make pistols unable to hit with their stats in close combat, which would be gamist, verbose, generic, and potentially harmful to models/units not created for the 2nd edition rules. Units tend to either have pistols that hit at strength 4 with a -1 or -2 save modifier, or they have no pistol or a pistol that hits no harder than their basic strength of 3 with no save modifier anyway.

You could be right about the ramifications but I wouldn't call it verbose. However I never really liked the idea that you could make all of your attacks with a pistol and would gladly limit pistols to 1 attack in combat each (2 pistols = 2 attacks) unless you were a gunfighter (eg cypher).

Recall that I would drop ASMs by 1 across the board, so most pistols wouldn't have one.

This idea for primitive weapons is already in the game in the form of bows and crossbows albiet using different rules. It would only apply to primtive weapons of which there are few.

But it may be more of a problem in 2nd ed than in Necromunda where I implemented it. I did it in necro to make armour more valuable and separate cheap great weapons from power weapons etc and actually make a chainsword different from a S4 wielded sword. It worked quite well but that's because most people begin with primitive weapons anyway, so they were everywhere. I did have an upgrade 'mono edged' that you could get making a primtive weapon no longer primitive.

You could fudge it by saying all military grade primitive weapons are mono edged by default, thus following the normal rules.


Hellebore

Col. Dash
16-01-2012, 23:00
Actually the parry rule led to assault marine squads armed solely with swords and powerfists.

I love 2nd ed and it isnt rosy tinted goggles as we played it not too long ago. It is a better game and I applaud your endevor. I am looking forward to 6th personally as it looks like a much more detailed and in depth game even if they do seem to be keeping AP instead of the far better armor save modifiers and group assault.

RBLFunk
16-01-2012, 23:50
I would assume and/or hope that the catapult had one. It did have the best ASM of all basic infantry weapons in 40k, it would seem odd to nerf it and then artificially boost others.Nope, but it's presently the second most powerful basic weapon behind pulse rifles, would be a tie save the pulse rifle's 30" range. Shuriken catapults could have multiple shots or a save modifier as they'd be disproportionately powerful with both. I've never thought their background description made them deserve to be particularly good against armour, whereas multiple shots suits well.


The game was modifier happy, I suppose in an effort to balance the fact that there was a lot of BS higher than 5, especially with the plethora of targeters handed out. But I don't think it really needed that many. Certainly if they used a BS system that could deal with small and high numbers equally they wouldn't need so many modifiers.I think I only half agree there, I haven't found that many situations where the negative modifiers add up to -3 that easily, but bonuses to hit and high BS were handed out too easily.


I think you're mistaken by claiming 'evasion' is gamist. When shooting at a person your skill with the gun isn't the only factor involved. I think the BS system as it was was far more gameist as it abstractified your shooting. What I liked about their combat and SvsT mechanics was that they were actually pitted against a logical opposing stat. The BS rules would be like making Melee you rolling to hit using your WS and ignoring the fact that your opponent was a highly skilled swordsman.I always figured the default to hit roll represented 'normal' circumstances, that being shooting at a group of human sized targets or single large-ish target within your weapon's effective range. What I find gamist is making it so those targets get to actively avoid bullets. Evading a sword or a claw or a punch in close combat with opposed rolls I buy, actively dodging bullets or otherwise making yourself harder to hit with some kind of innate agility dance on the spot fails to suspend my disbelief as a mechanic in a way that moving fast doesn't.


I personally didn't like the sheer number of to hit modifiers each gun had, especially most pistols getting +2 at short range. This really screwed with the already lopsided BS system and made low BS models shoot like champions even with any negative modifiers that might come into it.I like that many weapons are more effective at close range, but definitely not +2 more effective.


It would still work that way. One character fighting 6 individuals can only attack a number of them equal to his attacks, so generally 3. All of those 6 enemies can still attack the character, but that's the only model they can attack because they only have 1 attack. Outnumbered inferior units would be even more toast because if there are 4 of them and 8 of the enemy, they can only hit 4 of the enemy whilst the enemy can gang up on them two to a model.The specific example I was thinking of was a squad of guardsmen led by a guy with a powerfist fighting say an expensive close combat expert character or monster, maybe a marine captain. They pile in, since they outnumber the marine they get to decide the order in which they fight, the captain/monster kills half of them before the multiple combat modifiers stack up and break even, then by the time you get to the guy with the power fist he should score about 6 hits on the captain/monster who's buried under a pile of dead guardsmen.
How it works in any other system is dependent on the specific mechanics, but that's just a peculiarity of 2nd edition I like. The potentially large number of hits the winner of a round of close combat can score can make it highly decisive.


But it may be more of a problem in 2nd ed than in Necromunda where I implemented it. I did it in necro to make armour more valuable and separate cheap great weapons from power weapons etc and actually make a chainsword different from a S4 wielded sword.Good call. Weapons that hit with a bonus to the user's strength were always oddly (or maybe more accurately rationally) very attractive in 2nd edition and Necromunda. In the end that's how I made all close combat weapons work.

Hellebore
17-01-2012, 00:13
The specific example I was thinking of was a squad of guardsmen led by a guy with a powerfist fighting say an expensive close combat expert character or monster, maybe a marine captain. They pile in, since they outnumber the marine they get to decide the order in which they fight, the captain/monster kills half of them before the multiple combat modifiers stack up and break even, then by the time you get to the guy with the power fist he should score about 6 hits on the captain/monster who's buried under a pile of dead guardsmen.
How it works in any other system is dependent on the specific mechanics, but that's just a peculiarity of 2nd edition I like. The potentially large number of hits the winner of a round of close combat can score can make it highly decisive.


An example of what I was talking about would be a guardsman surrounded by 6 orks. The guardsman only has one attack and therefore can only put hits on one model (however many he rolls). All the other orks can still fail to win combat, but they don't suffer any hits for it. It just seemed really wierd that a single warrior got to fight and hit each enemy in turn. A model with 3 attacks in the example could only put hits on 3 models.

It would encourage characters to join squads more instead of running around solo.

Hellebore

MALICIOUS LOGIC
17-01-2012, 01:36
2nd Edition was too complex of a system. All the charts and modifiers of 2nd edition really slowed the game down. That's fine you're looking for a storyline driven game. But I don't like it as a baseline format for a tabletop strategy game.

I personally like games that are more streamlined and with clear rules that are concise. I'm also a tournament player. And those are simply my preferences.

But here's the compromise I'd like to see. I would recommend that the core 40k rules are streamlined. And then supplementary books can add complexity. Examples: Necromunda, Apocalypse, Cities of Death, Planet Strike, Armageddon, etc.

I love the diversity of 40k systems. Even Gothic, Epic, Aeronautica Imperialis, Dark Heresy, Death Watch...

When it comes to core rules and a core game system: You can always add complexity to a system (via supplements). But you can't just take it away.

spaint2k
17-01-2012, 04:29
When it comes to core rules and a core game system: You can always add complexity to a system (via supplements). But you can't just take it away.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. You can add diversity with supplements, but simply "bolting-on" added complexity and depth shouldn't be a solution; I feel that a ruleset should be designed elegantly from the start with the ability to handle the desired level of complexity.

itcamefromthedeep
17-01-2012, 04:53
Have fun playing 2nd edition. I won't be joining you.

It could be a great deal of fun, but as written it just wasn't anywhere near fair. I'd like pickup games once in a while. It'd be easier to get what I want from that system by starting with the current edition and add in some 2e random effect tables, agreeing on a points value with my opponent.

insectum7
17-01-2012, 08:51
Therein lies the problem ;)

I'm not sure what you're intending to imply. My point is only that my experience with overwatch was that it could be a very powerful mechanic, counter to what you were saying earlier.

If I returned to 2nd style 40K I'd consider incorporating a GM like RT, set up scenarios, and play with more turns. The codexes are colorful but potentially nuts, and 4-5 turns is short for narration.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 09:02
I don't think a GM is required; simply friendliness and understanding. I intend to play mostly with my son, when he's old enough, or with friends. This will inevitably provide a structure that suits the game: scenarios, campaigns, and - yes - longer turns. I also play lengthwise, up the (6x8) board, allowing for more movement and useful tactics to come into play.

Oh, and there'll be a lot of cover, but equally, there'll be fire lanes, open areas, and deathtraps. :p

Harwammer
17-01-2012, 10:56
I donned my rose tinted spectacles yesterday and read through some of the old 2nd ed rules. It was interesting to see how many little rules I don't think I ever picked up on.

I remember people always talking about commisars in tanks (or something like that), etc but I couldn't find any rules for taking tanks as character mounts beyond techy types being able to replace crewmen of vehicles (though this seemed to happen in game, rather than at army selection, though it was unclear).

For the sake of my peace of mind, can any 2nd ed player explain to me how character-mount tanks did/didn't work? I think the Ork book also mentioned characters taking support items would come out of the character allowance... was this basically refering to nob bikes or what? /confused

Souleater
17-01-2012, 11:09
Did anybody mention shuriken catapults jamming? I just want to check because whenever 2nd Ed comes up and CWE players go on about how uber their small arms were they never ever mention the two turns their models would spend without being able to shoot while clearing a single Jam.

God, I hated Eldar so much in 2nd Edition. Almost as much as Space Wolves.

As much as I loved Genestealers...yes, I hit you four times, wound you on twos...yes, your power armour is reduced to 6+...oh, another dead Space Puppy....such a shame after all that Overwatch fire.

...*cough*...as much as I enjoyed 2nd Edition there were good and bad sides to it. It was overly complex for larger battles, I think. But losing stuff like ASMs...I don't see why that was necessary.

Narf
17-01-2012, 11:34
to those who state that 2ed was to complex, and too slow, bear in mind you now play a game based on far larger games.

At 1500 pts in 2ed you might have:

Tactical squad - 300Pts + weapons
dev squad - 300pts + weapons
terminator squad - 300pts + weapons
character - 100-300pts inc weapons
heavy tanks - remainder of points (since you really didnt want to be in an exploding transport, you bought mainline tanks instead)

thats what, 25 models, and A tank if you can afford it.

VS

Tactical squad - 150Pts + weapons
dev squad - 150pts + weapons
terminator squad - 200pts + weapons
character - 100-150pts inc weapons
heavy tanks - remainder of points including transports

= 1/3 to 1/2 of the points to match what you bought before.

2ed is great as a skirmish game, an i do feel it has a purpose now, as kill team, use advanced rules for it, and have fun!

Col. Dash
17-01-2012, 12:48
To compare to the guy above me, my 1500 point chaos list was:
Lord lv4 Nurgle psyker with term armor, lightning claw, displacer field, combat drugs, and a daemon weapon and came in at 365 points.
5 Khorne terminators with post heresy armor with Twin lightning claws
3 Normal terminators with two reaper autocannons
5 -7 chaos marine vets with two lascannons.
1 Predator
1 Dread
Think that was it. Wondering if I had a normal marine squad.

Post heresy armor cost an extra 25%.

borithan
17-01-2012, 13:49
If you look in the rules games were expected to take longer than they are now. 1500 point games were meant to take an entire evening, not just a couple of hours. 3000 points was a whole afternoon. And this was with the aforementioned much smaller armies (some of the battle reports featured marine armies with 25 models in total, including vehicles). People should take this into account when saying it took longer. Firstly, they were meant to, and secondly, many people tried to play games that were basically too large for the system as designed (or at least, tried to play them in too short a time).

I have to say I don't like the 2nd edition combat system, at least for 40k. Not just because it is a bit cumbersome but because it was too one sided once you got past WS 6 (unless you really heaped on the number of guys, but you could loose them all). While in Necromunda you could get a maximum of WS 6 (and the minimum, barring some sort of crippling injury, was 2), in 40k the difference could get even greater. The "average" WS3 had enough of a disadvantage against WS6 in my opinion, there didn't need to be even more. I know most elite troops were limited to 6 at the very most (but were genestealers not 7?) and so you are limited to character territory there, but it just seemed excessive to me. It is also amusing that past a certain point (probably 3) multiple attacks were not that much help, more an increasing generator of randomness ("Yay! Another 6, +1" "Boo, a 1, -1"). WS was far more important than Attacks as a characteristic, while as now it is probably the reverse (not that WS is irrelevant, but +1A is probably more important to assault units than +1 WS).

I still don't know the reason for the system, as 1st edition was much more like the current system (comparing WS to WS and checking the chart). There were noticable differences; a standard "to hit" of 5, with the possible target randing from 2-6, (rather 3-5) penalties to hit, and the doubling of attacks with two weapons (but at massive penalties). I don't see the need for the 2nd edition system, other than as a interesting experiment.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 14:01
Hullo borithan! :p I think the thing with WS is that, actually, it provides an incentive to shoot the stabby things. ;) Genestealers really are that terrifying in combat - so don't let them get there!

As for characters, the answer's simple - don't take special characters, and write sensible lists appropriate to the campaign/scenario in question. :)

Col. Dash
17-01-2012, 14:06
We had it down to about one hour per 1k points a side. Its a myth that games took longer if you knew the rules. Knowing the rules makes a huge difference. Just think about when you as an experienced player plays against a new player in an army you dont play against very often and you spend half the game looking stuff up.

I like the older system, it made more sense. I do medieval martial arts as another hobby, and I can tell you just from this weekend, a badass fighter can competently take on 3 normal skilled opponents at once and expect to win. My unit is an experienced melee combat unit, and this one guy was tearing us apart unless we really outnumbered him(and worked together closely) and even then, losing one guy out of the three or four of us was expected. Usually he wasnt alone and he hit like a ton of bricks.

RBLFunk
17-01-2012, 14:07
An example of what I was talking about would be a guardsman surrounded by 6 orks. The guardsman only has one attack and therefore can only put hits on one model (however many he rolls). All the other orks can still fail to win combat, but they don't suffer any hits for it. It just seemed really wierd that a single warrior got to fight and hit each enemy in turn. A model with 3 attacks in the example could only put hits on 3 models.You gave me a thought, you could easily limit the total number of hits a model can land in a round or in a turn to their Attacks stat.


Was hoping you'd give me a pitch for non-gamist virtues of an evasion stat/opposed BS rolls.


I remember people always talking about commisars in tanks (or something like that), etc but I couldn't find any rules for taking tanks as character mounts beyond techy types being able to replace crewmen of vehicles (though this seemed to happen in game, rather than at army selection, though it was unclear).

For the sake of my peace of mind, can any 2nd ed player explain to me how character-mount tanks did/didn't work? I think the Ork book also mentioned characters taking support items would come out of the character allowance... was this basically refering to nob bikes or what? /confusedI think what you might be referring to is the habit of guard players to transport a squad led by a commissar in a chimera and have him fire the multilaser with his far superior BS of 5. It's a case of something that as far as I know isn't specifically allowed by the rules, but isn't specifically disallowed either. It may have been an inference made by players based on the fact that transported models fire the hull mounted lasguns. So why not let them (specifically the guy with the really good ballistic skill) fire the turret weapon too...
Extra cheese is earned for giving the commissar a wargear card like armour piercing ammo to use in the multilaser.

Not sure about the Ork stuff, I never owned that codex. But the cost of a character and all his wargear including things like warbikes comes out of the characters allowance.


We had it down to about one hour per 1k points a side. Its a myth that games took longer if you knew the rules. Knowing the rules makes a huge difference. Just think about when you as an experienced player plays against a new player in an army you dont play against very often and you spend half the game looking stuff up.I agree, and I'll further say that I never found large games, 3000 points or more, to be disproportionately slow. They were generally fast-moving and decisive. The only big disadvantage 2nd edition has in speed is a greater amount of bookkeeping.


I like the older [close combat] system, it made more sense.What I really like about it, why I've found every other close combat system in GW games lacking, is that a model always gets a chance to actively defend itself. Whereas in other systems, generally one side will have to take everything the other side can throw at it before it gets a chance to do anything. It's not like an I4 model gets to strike first against an I3 model 1 in 6 times more often, under normal circumstances it is always the same order.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 14:24
I think what you might be referring to is the habit of guard players to transport a squad led by a commissar in a chimera and have him fire the multilaser with his far superior BS of 5. It's a case of something that as far as I know isn't specifically allowed by the rules, but isn't specifically disallowed either. It may have been an inference made by players based on the fact that transported models fire the hull mounted lasguns. So why not let them (specifically the guy with the really good ballistic skill) fire the turret weapon too...
Extra cheese is earned for giving the commissar a wargear card like armour piercing ammo to use in the multilaser.

There is a FAQ in a White Dwarf that I have (perhaps 196 or 198) which states that this is Not Allowed, and anyone trying to do so should be dissuaded in the strongest possible terms; the reasoning being that the crew do that job - the Commissar may fire one of the mounted lasguns or shoot from an open top hatch, but that's it.

Konovalev
17-01-2012, 14:39
Did we really need another one of these? There are already existing and active 2ED threads...

Such as:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326799
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323917
and if you want threads to bash the current edition/meta/codicis. The entire general discussion forum is at your disposal.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 14:41
Did we really need another one of these? There are already existing and active 2ED threads...

Yes. Because I wanted to discuss, in part, my own adventures in 2nd Edition, seperately and apart from any previous discussions or threads on similar subjects.

What, did you think I was some kind of n00b, incapable of using the 'Search' function? Tch. Try again!

Commissar von Toussaint
18-01-2012, 23:56
Sorry to be late to the party, but I have to say: Good for you! (Or is the proper formulation "Good on ya!"?)

Anyhow, I did the same things some years ago. I thinned out my collection and sold off the ones for which I had no rules and retro-fitted those that required it (landspeeders mainly).

I am happy to say I have not looked back. My group has had a blast and I am continuing to add to my collection. Sunday night I played a superbly tense 2,000 point game in less than three hours and at some point I'll have a report up on one of the other 2nd ed. threads.

Most of my points have already been made, but I am fascinated by the tournament champion who used overwatch to crush the rubes.

Overwatch is a great rule - it keeps the game honest and allows players to provide covering fire against surprise attacks or chargers. But it comes with a price: -1 to hit anyone moving into or out of cover - or if he is charging.

Earlier commenters thought the -1 was automatic because it essentially was. I'm trying to think of someone who parked a model in the open and left it there and had his opponent go on overwatch, only to shoot it while it moved around in the open.

I'd also note that I started playing in 2nd and had many a pick-up game against people I didn't know. They were fun and reasonably balanced. I recall one where I played against the ugly Armorcast eldar super-heavy and amused myself by blowing chunks off it throughout the game.

The strength of that edition is found in the core rules. The weakness is found in the fiddly special abilities of some weapons and wargear. Close combat only goes slowly if you let it.

I also like that the core system is durable enough for any scenario: I don't need to buy a supplement to fight in a hive and another one to fight in open ground. It works fine anywhere you want to set your game.

I humbly suggest that you keep any revisions to a minimum, confining yourself to the changes I've adopted (linked below, of course). That way you get the full effect without stirring things up too much. Yes, I agree that battle rifles like the lasgun shouldn't have a save modifier, but I can also accept the designers' effect that power armor is really a 4+, which is plenty tough.

Biggy
19-01-2012, 00:07
Awesome. We're starting a 2nd ed 'build as you go' campaign down here is OZ for the same reason. It's not perfect but I can honestly say I had the best games with my mates with 2nd ed. I know there's a lot of hate out there but hey if you don't like 2nd you've got LOTS of other editions and games to play. We're even building some new armies specifically around 2nd ed.

Anyone in Sydney who's interested WSGS will be kicking this campaign off in a month or so if you're interested. Starting at 1000 points.

Hellebore
19-01-2012, 00:26
Was hoping you'd give me a pitch for non-gamist virtues of an evasion stat/opposed BS rolls.


I thought i already did in an earlier post. Shooting at someone isn't just a factor of your skill. Shooting at a sedentary bullseye is, but aiming at dynamic targets is not. Thus your chance to hit should in some way be affected by your opponent's reactions/experience. FoW does this with the chance of hitting a unit based on their experience - being humans it cancels out any differences and leaves experience.

Melee in the game uses opposed rolls. There is no inherent reason that sword fighting with someone has to be more opposed than shooting at a running person. I could equally say that melee should adopt the shooting rules and reflect the target's 'skill' with modifiers to your to hit roll.

I prefer the opposite.

Hellebore

Souleater
19-01-2012, 02:05
Second ed did apply a penalty for shooting at fast moving targets. This was of some benefit to Tyranids. Not an opposing roll but it did take the enemy into account

RBLFunk
19-01-2012, 09:20
I thought i already did in an earlier post.I was hoping that you would provide simulationist reasoning for an opposed roll shooting system. I.e. X represents that the target is doing Y. Why is this unit harder to hit? What is it that they're doing that allows them to actively avoid bullets?


Shooting at someone isn't just a factor of your skill. Shooting at a sedentary bullseye is, but aiming at dynamic targets is not. Thus your chance to hit should in some way be affected by your opponent's reactions/experience. FoW does this with the chance of hitting a unit based on their experience - being humans it cancels out any differences and leaves experience.Once your target is exposed it pretty much is just a factor of your skill. There isn't much of anything a person can do to actively avoid incoming bullets save go prone, which anyone can do, or move as quickly as possible to cover so that they are no longer exposed, which again, anyone can do. They're matters of what the target happens to be doing at the time it was shot at, not active opposition to the attacker's aim.

FoW's rules sound very gamist. My guess is that in this context, FoW's opposed shooting mechanics are a means of making more valuable units more survivable. In a broader scale, more abstracted game (I don't know if FoW actually is) I can buy that to some extent. But in a game of 40K's scale in which each individual soldier's position, what he's doing, where there is cover and where there is not, etc. is known and represented, it fails to suspend my disbelief. Saying that this unit of experienced soldiers is harder to hit when they're standing here in the open shooting at you, compared to this unit of similar but less experienced soldiers in the same situation, looks like gamism. Which is fine if plot/hero shield is what you want and it achieves your goals, but it runs counter to simulationism.


Melee in the game uses opposed rolls. There is no inherent reason that sword fighting with someone has to be more opposed than shooting at a running person.I completely disagree.
You can anticipate a swing with a sword relatively easily, you can move in and out of your opponent's sword swinging range relatively easily, you can block the sword swing, if you're agile you might be able to duck it or sidestep it. You can actively avoid those incoming attacks, you can intelligently defend yourself.
You can anticipate that bullets might be coming, but once they're on the way you can't do anything about it.


I could equally say that melee should adopt the shooting rules and reflect the target's 'skill' with modifiers to your to hit roll.That's pretty much what 3rd+ edition does. You can assume a 4+ to hit roll as standard, your opponent's skill then modifies your roll. +1 to hit for having a lower WS, etc.

You can interpret the 2nd edition shooting rules as assuming targets have an 'evasion' stat of 3, and negative modifiers to your BS are positive modifiers to the target's EV. BS3 vs EV 3 = 4+ to hit. BS4 vs EV3 = 3+ to hit, etc. Moving over 10" per turn +1EV, behind soft cover +1EV, behind hard cover +2EV, holofield +1EV, etc.

Hellebore
19-01-2012, 11:10
We are also talking about a setting where alien races actually have the reflexes to dodge incoming projectiles - eldar and tyranids come to mind.

The opposing ability is the reflexes of the target, their ability to jink from side to side as they close with you, their awareness of what you are doing, ability to roll under the fire and come up running and so on.

You can do something about incoming shots by not being where they are going to be. By 'faking out' the firer and leading them to fire in the wrong direction.

Your position doesn't go far enough. You don't need to worry about the speed of an enemy or anything like that when firing a fully automatic weapon, you simply point and shoot at them. By your position that the enemy has no affect on the accuracy of the firer, anyone using a rapid firing weapon shouldn't be affected by modifiers either because they are simply relying on quantity of shot downrange to hit something.

The fact that the game tacitly admits to there being difficulty levels in firing at targets already shows they are using an 'opposed' concept, so if they're already using one there should be no problem in doing the same but providing more variation than what currently exists.

I would recommend having a wider variation of the SvsT table as well, but that requires using different dice.

Hellebore

AndrewGPaul
20-01-2012, 07:36
FoW's rules sound very gamist. My guess is that in this context, FoW's opposed shooting mechanics are a means of making more valuable units more survivable. In a broader scale, more abstracted game (I don't know if FoW actually is) I can buy that to some extent. But in a game of 40K's scale in which each individual soldier's position, what he's doing, where there is cover and where there is not, etc. is known and represented, it fails to suspend my disbelief. Saying that this unit of experienced soldiers is harder to hit when they're standing here in the open shooting at you, compared to this unit of similar but less experienced soldiers in the same situation, looks like gamism. Which is fine if plot/hero shield is what you want and it achieves your goals, but it runs counter to simulationism.

Flames of War assumes that there's basically no such thing as "not in cover". even a bowling green-flat wargames board represents ground with hollows and ridges, bushes and other low cover, which is why infantry get a flat saving throw. The rules assume that veteran models aren't that much better at actually aiming and shooting their rifles than fresh troops, but that the veterans are a lot better at utilising what cover is available, have better situational awareness (so don't walk out into the open in front of enemy machine guns) and spread out more to avoid multiple hits, that sort of thing. From the point of view of the shooter, veteran infantry simply aren't as visible as a load of fresh recruits (as can be observed in online FPS games - it's much easier to kill n00bs :) ). In terms of 40K, it's like saying that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors get a 3+ cover save while Guard and Guardians get a 4+

It's only direct fire which is based on the target's skill; accuracy of artillery fire is based on the skill of the observer and firer.

Gen.Steiner
20-01-2012, 07:48
A similar mechanic can be observed in Stargrunt II and Tomorrow's War. There, the firer's dice are opposed by a mix of he target's defence and ability dice. So a veteran unit with advanced body armour is harder to hurt than a bunch of militia in t-shirts.

Of course these rolls are assuming that the shooting is mostly accurate anyway; you're not so much rolling to hit as you are rolling to wound.

However, I do enjoy the flow of the 2nd Edition shooting system as the modifiers are a style I am very familiar with hanks to rulesets such as Charge!, or those published by Peter Pig under the Rules For The Common Man banner.

RBLFunk
20-01-2012, 08:19
If you can actually literally dodge bullets - let alone lasers - then you should be able to quite literally run rings around any close combat opponent that isn't similarly superhuman. This does not hold true in my experience with the setting. Things that can literally dodge bullets and run rings around opponents in close combat are few and far between. Lictors and Imperial Assassins are the only units I can remember that were given a dodge save in 2nd edition.

My contention is that there are very, very few units even in 40K that should have any ability to actively avoid incoming shots by dancing about.

No evasive acrobatics or attempts at deceptive movement are going to have any appreciable effect above and beyond the benefits of just moving quickly, they will only slow you down. Unless you're bunnyhopping, jinking, circle-strafing or dolphin-diving your way through a video game, but this isn't a video game and those things are a bit silly. A fast and agile individual is better off moving as fast as possible to minimise the amount of time they are exposed to fire. That's the big advantage of moving fast - minimising the amount of time you are in the line of fire, whether it be while moving from cover A to cover B, galloping the last 200 metres before you land your cavalry charge, or the amount of time a CIWS has to track, provide a firing solution and engage an incoming projectile before it hits.

Opposed BS roll or not, I think we agree the D6 system doesn't accommodate enough variation to effectively implement such a system. If in the system I described you gave something agile like a harlequin an EV of 4, the other modifiers in place like +1EV for moving fast, +1EV for a holofield, could quickly add up to make them almost impossible to hit for the average soldier.


Flames of War assumes that there's basically no such thing as "not in cover".That's what I thought. If I recall correctly there was an Imperial Guard veteran ability in 2nd edition that improved the to hit modifier for cover by -1.


A similar mechanic can be observed in Stargrunt II and Tomorrow's War. There, the firer's dice are opposed by a mix of he target's defence and ability dice. So a veteran unit with advanced body armour is harder to hurt than a bunch of militia in t-shirts.If your target's defence stat that your BS or combined BS/to-wound roll is opposed to represents their armour and natural resilience, that makes a lot of sense.

Gen.Steiner
20-01-2012, 10:52
If you can actually literally dodge bullets - let alone lasers - then you should be able to quite literally run rings around any close combat opponent that isn't similarly superhuman. This does not hold true in my experience with the setting. Things that can literally dodge bullets and run rings around opponents in close combat are few and far between. Lictors and Imperial Assassins are the only units I can remember that were given a dodge save in 2nd edition.

And rightly so - the concept of being able to dodge something that travels several times the speed of sound is ... difficult. The further away you are, the 'easier' is is to dodge but when your opponent is firing pulsed coherent light energy then it becomes basically impossible at distances of less than one light-second (approx. 299,793 km).

In other words, shooting relies much more on the firer's skill than it does on the opponent's ability to somehow get out of the way. You can take cover, or wear armour, but basically if the projectile or energy beam misses it's because the firer's aim is off or there are other external factors apart from how much you're dodging around.

borithan
20-01-2012, 11:41
A similar mechanic can be observed in Stargrunt II and Tomorrow's War. There, the firer's dice are opposed by a mix of he target's defence and ability dice. So a veteran unit with advanced body armour is harder to hurt than a bunch of militia in t-shirts.

Of course these rolls are assuming that the shooting is mostly accurate anyway; you're not so much rolling to hit as you are rolling to wound.I thought Stargrunt always had a single dice for the defender. Based on range for the "to hit" roll (with veteran units having longer range increments so being better shots) modified by cover. The effect is determined by how many of the firer's dice beat the defence dice (1 Supression, 2+ possible wounding hits). Then the target's armour is used for defending against the weapon's impact. It is a while since I read the rules, but I don't remember the defender's experience level actually having a direct impact on the result (except that their greater experience means they benefit more easily from cover).

Frankly, at the scale FoW works at I think the whole "target's veterancy determines to hit" works ok. Each base represents 4-6 guys, and the whole game scale is much larger and more abstract in its scope. "Rolling to hit" in that represents more than it does in 40k, where it purely represents the attempt to hit the target. It includes finding the target in the first place (veterans are going to make better use of concealment), and as said FoW presumes that there is always some sort of cover for infantry (which veterans would be better able to identify and use). Also, training, while it did vary, was a lot less varied than a contest between a modern professional military and an untrained militia, and in the sustained conflict like WW2 veterans were more those that were better able to survive, rather than necessarily the best shots.

Fenrisian Ale
20-01-2012, 13:00
Personally I'd love to go back to something more akin to the 2nd Edition rules. I have never been a fan of all the streamlining rules. The only thing that has stopped me doing this in the past is that, I also love all the new models that have come out since then, and I know I'd do a useless job of coming up with rules to integrate those models.

I haven't really liked the Direction GW has taken the rules where speed of game, and generic armies has been the order of the day. Sure the old rules could be abused, but playing friends meant that that rarely happened.

the game back then was more involved, and you'd get excited about individual models in a squad having remarkable luck against another individual model. Whereas now it is more of a numbers game. Roll this many dice to hit, take away misses, roll this many dice to wound, take away failures, roll this many dice to save, remove this many models. I think this latter method of play concentrates the mind too much on the win and less on what is really happening in the game. I used to care what each CC trouper was equipped with, but now it's all been blurred into two close combat weapons, with the occasional special.

Sure 2nd Edition rules weren't perfect, but they were most certainly the most fun.

Gen.Steiner
20-01-2012, 13:01
You know, Borithan, your ability to remember intricate details at the drop of a hat is a great talent :p

Stargrunt II does indeed limit the target to just 1 dice - but it is their Quality dice that is used, and then the result is, as you say, modified by their armour. So a Veteran unit has a better chance to not get hurt by incoming fire than a Green unit even before you allow for their body armour.

As for Flames of War and other games that have a higher level of abstraction, well, it's not really relevant to the discussion at hand - which is to say 1 figure = 1 man reinforced platoon skirmish games.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-01-2012, 18:59
Regarding opposed rolls for shooting, I dislike them both from a game design and realism standpoint. In design terms, it's just another fiddly mechanic. In realism terms, the real question is whether the shooters can hit the target, any target.

The reason green troop miss veterans is not that the wily veterans make better use of cover - it is that the green troops are lousy shots.

Similarly, green troops are often shot up by veterans because veterans actually hit their targets. Yes, some green troops do stupid things like look out of the fox hole at the wrong time, but that won't get them killed if the gun shooting at him misses. No, the sniper must be accurate to get the kill.

Thinking over my previous post, I realized that that a lot of folks - myself included - have missed the point of power armor, armor save mods and so forth. The goal is not to provide models with a 3+ save, it is to provide models with reasonably effective protection from ballistic fire. The problem with the current editions is that it provides too much protection and that it does so unevenly.

Power armor originally was 4+, and Space Marines had toughness 3. As a result, boltgun shots inflicted a casualty 44% of the time. By increasing the save and the toughness, this was reduced to 25%.

That's a decent probability of survival. It means that even if you hit, odds are the guy will make it thanks to his armor and constitution. Ticking that downwards even more makes shooting simply useless.

What GW should have done, is eliminate the baseline -1 modifier for battle rifles and gone with a three-step save (4,5,6) and then have battle rifles get no mod, heavy weapons get a -1, energy -2 and anti-tank -3. You'd get a cleaner system.

Instead, they staple special rules all over the places to make up for the core system's failures.

And that's really what we are talking about here: 2nd ed.'s core rules are superb. They are clear and realistic. It is the special rules/wargear/weapons that needed work. That is why it is fundamentally easier to fix than the current version.

Gen.Steiner
20-01-2012, 19:33
The only issue I can see with that is that there are more than three categories of armour in 40K. Flak, Carapace, Mesh, Powered, Terminator. You could do something like this though:

Flak - 6+
Mesh - 5+
Carapace - 4+
Powered - 3+
Terminator - 2+

And then you say that battle rifles get no save mods, boltguns (and perhaps things like ShuriCats, which fire monomolecular discs of metal) get -1, energy weapons -2, heavy weapons -3, and anything bigger than man-portable is a -4 at least. Which makes sense frankly; why would powered armour give any save against a 120mm HESH round?

But, yes, I totally agree; the current set of rules are fundamentally flawed - partly by the fetishisation of special rules - and the 'fixes' of exceptions, exemptions, and caveats are bulky, badly thought out, incoherent, and overly complex. Commissar, you are right. 2nd Edition is fundamentally sound, clear, and easy to work with.

Rated_lexxx
20-01-2012, 23:46
Reading this reminds me on Dungeon and Dragon forums I frequent. There is always a thread about someone going back to 2nd edition because it was "better". A few months later the same person comes back to 4th because of the problems that edition had. He forgot about those "problems" because of nostalgia got in the way.

Not saying one edition is better then the other, but the grass is always greener and nostalgia can blur ones view

Gen.Steiner
21-01-2012, 00:24
Except, of course, that I've spent the thread acknowledging the issues that exist with 2nd Edition, and discussing ways around them - from pre-game planning to minor tweaks and alterations to the rules themselves.

I - and others - prefer the more detailed, clearer, easier to understand, more story-oriented rules. In 2nd Edition you can truly develop your own characters - be they basic troopers or Space Marine Captains.

Col. Dash
21-01-2012, 02:58
And others of us have played it in the not too distant past and can see the massive flaws in the current game as well and are not viewing 2nd with rosy goggles.

Biggy
21-01-2012, 06:15
Except, of course, that I've spent the thread acknowledging the issues that exist with 2nd Edition, and discussing ways around them - from pre-game planning to minor tweaks and alterations to the rules themselves.

I - and others - prefer the more detailed, clearer, easier to understand, more story-oriented rules. In 2nd Edition you can truly develop your own characters - be they basic troopers or Space Marine Captains.

That is EXACTLY why we at WSGS are going back to 2nd ed. We acknowledge the flaws but as a 'game with your mates' it is great. The fluff driven stuff (all characters must be named including vet sergeants etc) makes it more enjoyable for us old-timers I guess. :)

Grocklock
21-01-2012, 07:27
I think, good on you for returning to 2nd ed, if you really think it was a better game. It was good for its time much like space invaders, but doesn't mean it has stood the test of time. Your comments on there are no win at all cost players playing it, Well this is down to the people you game with. If there are win at all cost people in your group then it doesn't matter if you play 5 edition, 2nd edition or hungry hippos. These people will always be win at all cost. It is not a problem with 5th edition alone.

But I do applored you for return to the games of the past, but in my opinion 2nd edition was a good game but does not match up to the games of today.

zoggin-eck
21-01-2012, 08:01
Sounds like good fun mate, I'd love to try it all again. That way i could find out if it really was such a fun game, or if it's just nostalgia :D

The usual comments and complaints against vortex grenades, wolf lord terminators, assasains etc. mean nothing to me. Basically, we either didn't care about choosing the "best" stuff or stopped using anyhting if it seemed "game-breaking". (It might have had more to do with what we could afford. As in, we took basic troops because that's what was in the unit boxes and blisters (Never had enough bits back then to max out on weapon options for units, for example).

Deadnight
21-01-2012, 08:03
Personally I'd love to go back to something more akin to the 2nd Edition rules. I have never been a fan of all the streamlining rules. The only thing that has stopped me doing this in the past is that, I also love all the new models that have come out since then, and I know I'd do a useless job of coming up with rules to integrate those models.

I haven't really liked the Direction GW has taken the rules where speed of game, and generic armies has been the order of the day. Sure the old rules could be abused, but playing friends meant that that rarely happened.

the game back then was more involved, and you'd get excited about individual models in a squad having remarkable luck against another individual model. Whereas now it is more of a numbers game. Roll this many dice to hit, take away misses, roll this many dice to wound, take away failures, roll this many dice to save, remove this many models. I think this latter method of play concentrates the mind too much on the win and less on what is really happening in the game. I used to care what each CC trouper was equipped with, but now it's all been blurred into two close combat weapons, with the occasional special.

Sure 2nd Edition rules weren't perfect, but they were most certainly the most fun.

to be honest, i dislike the whole "back in the day" attitude. Was it really because things were better, or was it because it was all new and shiny to you? "back in the day" for me was third. And i remember it fondly. But looking back, its not because the game i was playing was somehow "better", its because i was too new to it to become jaded with it.


Regarding opposed rolls for shooting, I dislike them both from a game design and realism standpoint. In design terms, it's just another fiddly mechanic. In realism terms, the real question is whether the shooters can hit the target, any target.


It depends on the mechanics, to be honest. mods, opposed rolls etc are fine to me, if the game is built around them. Its going on a tangent, but 40k now uses a seperate "cover save" to represent the effects of cover. 2nd ed 40k, and warmachine have negative "hit modifiers" and positive "defense" modifiers to represent the effects of cover. Starship troopers used a positive armour mod to represent cover. all different mechanics yet they all work to acheive the same goal. regarding opposed rolls for shooting. i can see it. My uncle hunts. As he says, moving targets are very hard to hit. harder to hit than stationary targets. any number of military guys i've spoken to have said the same thing. especially when bullets are flying through the air, and its not that easy to line of that perfect shot, when the other guy is ducking for cover, jinking around the place and otherwise playing hard to hit. and shooting back. Now it seems reasonable to me that in those circumstances, it should be harder to hit someone. beyond that, its a case of implementing game mechanics to "represent" that. game mechanics are by definition kind of "gamey". they're not real. they're abstract. Look at shields in warmachine. of your two protective stats (DEF, and ARM. defence, and armour - the former being your ability to avoid getting hit, and the latter representing your physical toughness and that) but shields buff ARM. they dont stop you getting hit in the first place, but they increase your resistance to damage. to be honest, i dislike the separation here. personally i feel shields do both. you can use a shield to take the hit rather than yourself (thus the argument for buffing your def) and when hit, the shield can absorb the damage instead of you. but a game being a game, has to draw a line somewhere. im not 100% happy with it, but im happy to work with what PP have given me.

Shadowheart
21-01-2012, 10:43
As a Star Wars fan, I've had my fill of the whole nostalgia argument. Much as I believe in progress, things tend to get better because we get new things. The successive editions of 40K aren't so much new or improved as they are different. Even if GW got 40K just right (whatever that means to you), they'd change it up again as soon as they got to the next Codex. Reverting to 2nd edition for one thing has the advantage of not having to keep up with that endless cycle of change and adjustment (and complaining). I think there's a lot to be said for it. So you go girl. I mean, general.

Souleater
21-01-2012, 10:58
... i dislike the separation here...

That would explain your lack of paragraphs, certainly. :D

Fenrisian Ale
21-01-2012, 12:35
to be honest, i dislike the whole "back in the day" attitude. Was it really because things were better, or was it because it was all new and shiny to you? "back in the day" for me was third. And i remember it fondly. But looking back, its not because the game i was playing was somehow "better", its because i was too new to it to become jaded with it.


A fair point. However in this instance wrong. By your definition of "back in the day", then I'd be advocating Rogue Trader. However, as new a brilliant as this was, it was painful to play in any size, rules such as the turning circle of a tank, where the radius of the turn was equal to the speed of the tank, made even moving slow.

No, I think 2nd was the best, because it was the peak of design before the onus was put on streamlining and normalising. I think it had just the right balance. As I said though, you will, no matter which version of rules you play, always find those for whom winning is all important, who will skew armies in anyway possible just to win.

The Death of Reason
21-01-2012, 20:53
RT was the best.

It was a book introducing a cool universe and a bunch of game mechanics, and told you to go be creative model and ruleswise and have fun.

Later editions have come off as a finished product and you enter it believing, you'll have a good and balanced game experience, but soon realize that the product is half baked, and you'll just have to live with it :p

Gen.Steiner
21-01-2012, 21:42
Frankly one of the most amusing things about revisiting 2nd Edition is the fact that there are stats for Electro-Priests, Skitarii, and Arbites units. :D

Commissar von Toussaint
23-01-2012, 14:39
to be honest, i dislike the whole "back in the day" attitude. Was it really because things were better, or was it because it was all new and shiny to you? "back in the day" for me was third. And i remember it fondly. But looking back, its not because the game i was playing was somehow "better", its because i was too new to it to become jaded with it.

I find that as I grow older, I am less tolerant of mediocre systems, not more. So the notion that I am playing 2nd ed. in an attempt to recapture my youth is flatly false. I used to own 100 wargames, some of them terrible. I've since sold about 80 them based in large part on the fact that I don't have the time to waste on inferior designs.

When I do get into a game, I want it as complete as possible. With two jobs and a family, I simply cannot fiddle around with doing what the designer should have done. To put it another way, there is a reason Conqueror has taken me years to complete.

That is why I enjoy 2nd ed. so much: It is a very complete design and the rules to fix it can fit on a single sheet of paper. It took a couple of weeks on Portent to get ideas, talk to people and finalize the "fixes," which my group has used with great satisfaction ever since. I played a game a week ago and am looking forward to another one this weekend.

So to answer your question - no, it is not a "back in the day" attitude. It is fun to look back at some of the games I used to play (including the old D&D rules sets) and sometimes going back makes you appreciate the new even more.

But it can also make you realize that newer isn't always better.

It is also important to understand that one must compare like with like. People trying to compare Space Invaders to Fallout 3 are way off base. Space Invaders never advertised itself as an all-in, multi-media, plot-based adventure game. It was a time-waster, nothing more. And you know what? It's still a good time-waster.



As he says, moving targets are very hard to hit. harder to hit than stationary targets. any number of military guys i've spoken to have said the same thing. especially when bullets are flying through the air, and its not that easy to line of that perfect shot, when the other guy is ducking for cover, jinking around the place and otherwise playing hard to hit. and shooting back. Now it seems reasonable to me that in those circumstances, it should be harder to hit someone. beyond that, its a case of implementing game mechanics to "represent" that. game mechanics are by definition kind of "gamey". they're not real. they're abstract.

It all depends on what you are trying to simulate, though. One could say the base BS includes evading targets and that if an Imperial Guardsman were firing at the training range, using known distance and a rest, he'd hit every time. The problem is that there is no baseline to compare this to. The assumption therefore is that BS is against people who don't want to be hit and includes the "Someone else is shooting at me and I am therefore tense" modifier.

2nd ed. worked well because of those shooting mods and how they treated cover as different than armor. A fast-moving target that ends its move behind a wall is devilishly hard to hit. This is reflected in its -3 to hit modifier.

As one closes the range, however, shooting gets easier because the targets appear to be larger. My basic training platoon won the competition in our company for accuracy when we were on the night-firing range. We were all excited (we had a reputation for being the worst shots) until our platoon sergeant called us together and explained that we won by virtue of ignoring distant targets and shooting the crap out of everything within 100 meters. We were particularly rough on the 50 meter one.

So the +1 that most weapons get is also realistic - as are the targeting rules. Our platoon definitely went for "closest and easiest target." :p

Gen.Steiner
23-01-2012, 14:52
Yeh, what Commissar von Toussaint said. :D

AM1640
23-01-2012, 18:03
Hi, I was taught how to play on 2nd Edition so it is partially a nostalgia thing and partly a preference thing. Reasons I enjoyed 2nd ed include the slightly smaller scale - there seemed to be less troops on the field; more emphasis on shooting - I am not a fan of having to take a bunch of close combat troops in a distant far future where there are long range laser guns; vehicles were fewer in number but much deadlier - I had a guard army and there were a couple of tanks that could move and shoot with all weapons; I liked overwatch - as someone who owns and has fired different kinds of weapons in military training scenarios it just makes sense that you should have some sort of overwatch option. Other game systems have retained this option, I just don't know why GW took it out of 40K; the variability amoungst the different races - humans moved 4 inches, eldar 5, and genestealers moved 6 inches. The stat lines seemed to have difference in them so depending on your play style you could pick an army to reflect it and it would be different than your opponents army.
I didn't like the changes made to the game for 3rd edition (the loss of moving and shooting with my tanks, the ability for 1 space marine character to murder all of a guard unit even though he was only touching one of them, the removal of overwatch). I have tried to play the game since and I have not had an enjoyable game yet. I did have lots of fun playing 2nd ed and the hugely successful spin off game Necromunda. Good for you to go back and play a "dead game" I have tried to do that with Vor The Maelstrom to no avail (an excellant game, try it out).

Gen.Steiner
23-01-2012, 20:51
A game is only dead if you let it die; I have played several wargames that aren't really in circulation any more: Operation Warboard, Charge!, and so on.

2nd Edition strikes a chord with me and I am going to have a solo game at some point soon just for kicks - Guard squaddies versus Orks. 4x4 table, 500 points, meeting engagement - something like that.

Biggy
23-01-2012, 21:32
I find that as I grow older, I am less tolerant of mediocre systems, not more. So the notion that I am playing 2nd ed. in an attempt to recapture my youth is flatly false. I used to own 100 wargames, some of them terrible. I've since sold about 80 them based in large part on the fact that I don't have the time to waste on inferior designs.

When I do get into a game, I want it as complete as possible. With two jobs and a family, I simply cannot fiddle around with doing what the designer should have done. To put it another way, there is a reason Conqueror has taken me years to complete.

That is why I enjoy 2nd ed. so much: It is a very complete design and the rules to fix it can fit on a single sheet of paper. It took a couple of weeks on Portent to get ideas, talk to people and finalize the "fixes," which my group has used with great satisfaction ever since. I played a game a week ago and am looking forward to another one this weekend.

So to answer your question - no, it is not a "back in the day" attitude. It is fun to look back at some of the games I used to play (including the old D&D rules sets) and sometimes going back makes you appreciate the new even more.

But it can also make you realize that newer isn't always better.


Exactly!! We've just started (or will be starting shortly) a 'build as you go' 2nd ed campaign at our club pretty much for those reasons. Most of our members are just like this; jobs, families etc. We want to be playing a game we enjoy with models we want to paint in the assurance that 6 months down the track the rules aren't going to change and make all our hard work (not to mention spent money) redundant because of one or two rules changes. 2nd ed is gaining a lot of support in our area (or regaining I guess). It'll be the standard for us for some time.

Commissar von Toussaint
27-01-2012, 22:48
We want to be playing a game we enjoy with models we want to paint in the assurance that 6 months down the track the rules aren't going to change and make all our hard work (not to mention spent money) redundant because of one or two rules changes.

That's one element that people keep ignoring.

Every time I think: "Maybe I should get back into the current version of 40k," I notice that the countdown has already begun for its replacement.

Somebody please explain to me how I can justify spending hundreds of dollars updating my armies only so that in a year or two, I can do it all over again. :confused:

I know some folks like to see a game continually expand and change, but I prefer to focus on changing and expanding my armies and understanding of the game. I see little profit in constantly having to develop new tactics for an ever-changing rules set.

The thing is, the rules are common enough on ebay and on the 'net that you can teach it to new people and still get them involved. If GW had any marketing savvy they would be selling 2nd ed. as "40k Advanced" and keeping players like me in "the hobby."

Torga_DW
28-01-2012, 04:55
Every time I think: "Maybe I should get back into the current version of 40k," I notice that the countdown has already begun for its replacement.
Somebody please explain to me how I can justify spending hundreds of dollars updating my armies only so that in a year or two, I can do it all over again. :confused:


Well okay, i'll give it a shot, keeping in mind its just my subjective opinion. Back in the day, 2nd came out to make a better game out of rogue trader. The target demographic was adults as long-term players.

Somewhere along the way, the target became kids as short-term churn and burns. I guess its more profitable, but its been that way ever since. You're simply not required to keep their business running, and as such not worth catering to.




I know some folks like to see a game continually expand and change, but I prefer to focus on changing and expanding my armies and understanding of the game. I see little profit in constantly having to develop new tactics for an ever-changing rules set.


I like to see games improve if they're going to change. I haven't seen that here in 40k since the change from rogue trader to 2nd edition.



The thing is, the rules are common enough on ebay and on the 'net that you can teach it to new people and still get them involved. If GW had any marketing savvy they would be selling 2nd ed. as "40k Advanced" and keeping players like me in "the hobby."

As i said, advanced players aren't the target demographic, hence will not be catered to, because to do so would take money away from their core product. This is not by gamers for gamers (anymore). This is a public company looking to maximise its profits for share holders. I feel really cynical and jaded saying this, but its the conclusion i reached based on what i see and read. :(

Gen.Steiner
28-01-2012, 08:08
This is not by gamers for gamers (anymore). This is a public company looking to maximise its profits for share holders. I feel really cynical and jaded saying this, but its the conclusion i reached based on what i see and read. :(

Quoted for truth. But they still make useful figures and they did, once, make good games with lots of support (remember the Citadel Journal?) and at the very least they still 'support' (ha!) games like Necromunda, Blood Bowl and Epic.

Torga_DW
28-01-2012, 18:47
Quoted for truth. But they still make useful figures and they did, once, make good games with lots of support (remember the Citadel Journal?) and at the very least they still 'support' (ha!) games like Necromunda, Blood Bowl and Epic.

Agreed, on the whole they make damn fine miniatures. Their background was good, although its starting to become a little dragonballz in writing. The specialist game molds must be looking fairly dodgy at this point, but at least they still maintain the rules for free downloads.

I don't want to come off as a GW hater, although i am starting to slowly become more and more unhappy as time goes by.

Sometimes i wish i'd kept more of my 2nd edition stuff, but i've moved several times since then, and storage is an issue.

Anyways, good to see you're enjoying it. It really struck me as a good narrative game, and there are many design elements i still like about it. Oh, and i used to love the virus outbreak card, until my friend finally got his official ork codex. Damn you vaccine squig, ruin all my fun!

Gen.Steiner
28-01-2012, 19:10
It's not hard to pick 2nd Edition up off eBay, I think getting everything I didn't have cost me about £40 all told, and a big chunk of that was Codex: SoB (£5) and White Dwarf Battles (£10). P&P was more than the 'dexes, usually.

The only other viable way to play 40K IMHO is to pick one army, stick with it, and every time a new edition comes out buy only your army's new 'dex and borrow the updated rulebook.

Torga_DW
28-01-2012, 19:35
I found another alternative. :) I've been working (as a hobby) on my own set of 40kish rules. Finally reached a playable version, managed to find an opponent for some playtesting, and i'm quite pleased with how its turned out.

Gen.Steiner
28-01-2012, 22:33
Sounds like an interesting option, to be sure!

AndrewGPaul
29-01-2012, 12:07
At my club, there's an overlap between the "like the miniatures and background but not the rules" crowd and the people who've picked up Tomorrow's War. That could be promising. :)

Sunyavadin
29-01-2012, 12:37
I sincerely wish it was easier to find more 2nd Edition players in my vicinity...

Vampiric16
29-01-2012, 19:48
I posted a thread a few days ago, regarding my ownership of a complete 2nd edition box set (marines vs orks). Someone linked me here, citing the interest in the edition. So if anyone would like a copy of the game, drop a pm and I'll have a chat.

Gen.Steiner
29-01-2012, 20:15
At my club, there's an overlap between the "like the miniatures and background but not the rules" crowd and the people who've picked up Tomorrow's War. That could be promising. :)

Yes, absolutely, Tomorrow's War is a fabulous set of rules. Works well with 40K background too. Probably a lot better than actual 40K too!

Gen.Steiner
29-01-2012, 21:08
At my club, there's an overlap between the "like the miniatures and background but not the rules" crowd and the people who've picked up Tomorrow's War. That could be promising. :)

Yes, absolutely, Tomorrow's War is a fabulous set of rules. Works well with 40K background too. Probably a lot better than actual 40K too!

AlphariusOmegon20
30-01-2012, 00:34
I've thought about it.

Then I remember how nasty and broken that Plague marine list I used to run was and that just kills it for me.

Gen.Steiner
30-01-2012, 07:00
Thing is, if you know it was too powerful, just dial it down a bit. :p That's the thing that I keep banging on about; wargaming isn't just hammering your opponent into the floor and laughing, it's telling stories. Whether that's astory about how command and control was so awful that your brigade of infantry on the left marched about within gun range of a union battery and got shot to bits while your CO's men sat in a wood and never came to your assistance, or a story about how Warlord Snagrot Bloodangutz got his comeuppance at the hands of a group of Imperial Guard veterans doesn't matter.

It's all about the stories we weave, so why not play with that in mind? If you win - great - but I guarantee you that the best games are the ones where cool stuff happens that tell a story about our armies.

itcamefromthedeep
30-01-2012, 08:32
Thing is, if you know it was too powerful, just dial it down a bit.
A significant demographic of players wants a game that you can play to the best of your ability in terms of army list and tactics and still have a fun game while providing a fun game for a skilled opponent.

The kind of player who's in it for the challenge of a contest of minds isn't interested in the kind of game where you have "dial it down a bit" in order to prevent the experience from being lame.

Nobody cares about my win/loss ratio and for most games I'm in it for the memories, but I also don't want to deploy an army and then look across the table and realize that the game is all but hopeless (for myself or for my opponent). I have not found 2e to be conducive to that kind of game.

Gen.Steiner
30-01-2012, 09:34
Oh, I don't know. Defenders are often outnumbered and/or outmatched. I don't think it's necessarily always a negative to have an army that's very powerful.

I do however think that if you like to create the most efficient army you possibly can without regard for scenario, story, or 'feel'... then 2nd edition is most certainly not for you! :)

obithius
03-02-2012, 19:39
Good to hear that you are returning to 2nd. This is something we are trying to go at our club at the moment,as there's a few of us who would rather play it. Funny how many are crawling out of the woodwork...Seems nobody ever thought to say 'o.k. let's play 2nd' before now...The only issues we have is players with newer armies and models might not have rules available or datafax cards. There's some great work done by people online though,and we're not missing that much. Just trying to add heavy flamers and demolition charges to my guard now...

Gen.Steiner
04-02-2012, 01:59
And it's not that hard to write up new datafaxes and add to army lists and armouries.

Ronin_eX
04-02-2012, 03:04
Honestly, outside of the infamous Space Wolves CML-blob and Eldar Exarch-spam forces not much in 2nd was really overpowering compared to what you see from top-tier tourney lists today. For Space Wolves CML-blob simply say that they can have one heavy-weapon selection per five full members of a Wolf Guard squad. There main problem was that no one remembered to give them the same heavy/special-to-troop ratio as the rest of the armies. For Exarch-spam just have Exarch powers count as wargear selections and suddenly they aren't getting more special equipment and skills than everyone else.

After that you have Nids being a little tougher than usual but I figure if you are used to the current meta where IG and Space Wolves sit at the top of the pack then this shouldn't bug you to much.

2nd mostly suffered from the same things later editions did in that they never set out standards ahead of time to keep forces in check. Thus Eldar Exarches got powers and cards while Chaos Champions had to use card slots to get powers. The SWs were the worst offenders because they were the first out of the gate and developed before GW had found that sense of decency that had them telling players to tear up virus outbreak. 2nd requires a few house rules to get the kinks worked out but with those in place it gets rid of the two major power builds and leaves you open to play whatever you want without fear that others can't cope.

After those two lists there isn't much I would consider an actual power list it was just ones your friends hadn't figured out the trick to yet. For instance, against an infantry heavy force with a largely poor BS my all-Land Speeder Ravenwing army may as well have been unstoppable. But with its paper thin armour and low model count it only took a character or two equipped for anti-vehicle work to dispose of it (one of the few roles where characters could actually get their points back actually). I'm sure your Plaguemarine army was tough but I doubt it was unbeatable considering how deadly 2nd Edition is for infantry.

So yeah, implement those two popular house rules and enjoy a relatively balanced game.

Now for those more anal about balance (like me :p) it wont fix everything (Marines still cost way too much) but even playing with 30 point marines I haven't looked across the table yet and not believed I couldn't defeat my opponent with the force I chose.

Adra
04-02-2012, 07:03
Iím fine with people going back to 2nd edition, whatever floats ones boat, but this thread just seems to be a thinly veiled snipe at games workshop.

You guys talk as if the guys making 2nd edition where some kind of cottage gaming co-operative of friendly old guys with beards who only cared about being credible. Thatís rubbish. They swapped things up to second edition to make more money and move the product forward, and it worked so they kept doing it.

The guys on here saying how they hate how the game changes every few years I would say that you can always stick with whatever edition you like, but that shouldnít stifle new works. I like 4th edition (ok maybe not everyoneís taste) and I can always go back to it, but i still like new stuff. Fickle GW may be but so is the player base. Now a single set of rules with the same codex for the past 20 years...thatís something easy to leave in the past.