PDA

View Full Version : Whatever happened to 2nd-ed revision?



TenTailedCat
20-06-2005, 00:07
Back in Portent there was quite a large group of chaps revisng 2nd edition, fixing broken areas and generally updating it. Do they still carry on somewhere, or did they die out/give up with Portent? That'd be such a shame.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-06-2005, 05:25
You mean like this (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3226) thread?

Nobody posted. I'm still into the game, though. In fact we played a four-player game last night. The armies were Imperial Guard and Blood Angels vs Orks and Chaos. Each player brought 1500 points, so it was a 3000 point game.

Orks and Chaos won, :skull: delivering a brutal payback for their thrashing two weeks ago.

The mission was Take and Hold and we've officially modified the rules for that as a result of the game. From now on, squads under half strength, damaged vehicles and characters may NOT occupy or dispute the objective. In the event, it didn't matter, but it could have and after a bit of discussion we agreed that a single character flying in with a jump pack on the last turn shouldn't cancel out two full strength squads of terminators.

TenTailedCat
20-06-2005, 11:12
That really is a shame, the thread at portent got a hell of a lot of replies, though I'm not sure if they ever stopped arguing long enough to actually change anything :D

Nobody replied here either, I presume it's due to the (apparently) lower age range of the WarSeer members who don't remember/care about 2nd edition, which is fine. I wasn't around in 2nd ed either, but I hear so many good things that i'd love to try it out.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-06-2005, 15:47
It's out there on ebay.

The books are pretty cheap and since I posted my interest, I bought a set of the basic books (main rules, wargear and codex imperialis) for one of my friends to use.

They weren't free, but the whole set cost about half of what the 4th ed. rulebook runs.

Repeat playtesting has given us some other revisions. For example, we've dropped the Landraider Crusader down to 270 points from 290. It's scary, but not that scary.

If I get a little free time I'll post some battle reports, which will probably generate more than a little interest - particularly when I explain how cool things happened that current rules prevent.

For example, last game a squad of 6 infiltrated chaos veterans were on overwatch and they were charged by a 10-man veteran blood angels assault squad.

The chaos marines cut down half of the chargers in a hail of bolt pistol fire. :skull:

The immediate reaction to this was "Blood Angels suck!" but after the melee started, the BA (bolstered by the Red Grail and wielding power swords) wiped out the chaos marines in two rounds of fighting.

I found the old .pdf we put together but Warseer won't let me upload it. I'll tinker with things a little or maybe put a new web site up.

Commissar von Toussaint
22-06-2005, 23:58
Here's the text version:

Setup: No changes. Players should feel free to experiment with a variety of missions and forces.

Measurement: Many players may prefer to allow free measurement. If both opponents agree, this is perfectly acceptable. In that case “guess” weapons are placed to cover the most models. The defending player may adjust the template if it targets specific characters/special weapon troopers so long as the same number of models are affected.

Movement: No major changes, but we have simplified how some wargear works in relation to movement.

1. Models may charge squads they cannot see.
2. Models in transports may only charge if the transport has not moved. They do NOT count as charging from cover unless the transport itself is in cover.
3. Jump packs do not roll for scatter. Ork jump packs roll a d6 for each model every time they jump: on a 1, consult the malfunction table in the ork codex.

Shooting: Only a few minor clarifications and changes.

1. Sustained fire must be directed at a single squad.
2. To resolve shooting against a squad with varying levels of cover, the shooting player simply declares which modifier he wishes to use; his hits may then only be applied to models to which that modifier is appropriate. For example, a squad of five models has two in the open, one is soft cover, and two in hard cover. If the player applies no modifier, he may only apply hits at the two models in the open. If he applies the -1 soft cover modifier, he may apply hits to the model in soft cover as well. If he applies the -2 hard cover modifier, shooting may affect all models in the squad.
3. A reminder that Overwatch uses normal targeting restrictions (closest or easiest target).
4. Template missile weapons are placed to cover the most models. The defending player may adjust the template if it targets specific characters/special weapon troopers so long as the same number of models are affected.
5. Except for web guns, no template stays in effect past the turn in which it is used. Specifically plasma, vortex grenades and the like do not remain on the tabletop. Once the attack is resolved, the template is removed.
6. Similarly flamers and flame-using devices do NOT set models on fire. Models that save are assumed to have put the fire out.
Optional Rule: Some players prefer to roll sustained fire BEFORE rolling to hit. This takes more dice rolling, but means sustained fire hits are more evenly distributed.

Close Combat: No changes, but some clarifications.

1. Unengaged models (that is, those not in base-to-base) may disengage without penalty, but must retreat and are counted as BROKEN.
2. Unless unengaged models choose to disengage (and are broken), they may not otherwise move away from an enemy engaged in hand to hand combat with their squad.

Psykers: Not even close to being finished. For the short run, use the simplified rules in the basic rule book.


Vehicles: Not much here. Only one change regarding transports.

1. Passengers on board a transport that is destroyed are automatically wounded but may make an unmodified armor save. If they pass, they are placed adjacent to the wrecked vehicle.

Army Lists: Lots of possibilities for changes, but these are the most important.

1. Eldar are not required to take an avatar or farseer. Any character can be the army commander.

Wargear: As mentioned above, many of these have been restricted by general rules.

1. Virus-based weapons are no longer used.
2. Vortex grenades may only be used in games where a single character costs more than 250 points.

boogle
24-06-2005, 23:14
any news on the Dark Millenium project?

Commissar von Toussaint
02-07-2005, 20:12
I think that moved to Dysartes.

Chuffy
02-07-2005, 21:06
I wasn't around in 2nd ed either, but I hear so many good things that i'd love to try it out.

In my own experience when 3rd Ed came out there was never any need to go back to 2nd Ed. Seriously, 2nd ed looking back is so dire. Try it out by all means but don't be expecting anything amazing.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-07-2005, 14:59
In my own experience when 3rd Ed came out there was never any need to go back to 2nd Ed. Seriously, 2nd ed looking back is so dire. Try it out by all means but don't be expecting anything amazing.

That's certainly the line GW likes to sell people. :p

2nd ed. was clearly in need of a revision. Part of what my group has been doing (and what others on Portent were doing) was revising it.

But the core system is far superior to what GW uses today.

One thing I've noticed is that many people who hate 2nd ed. didn't play it correctly. I'm not talking about army selection, or missions, I mean they actually got the rules wrong. One guy was lamenting that a single tank ran over his entire ork mob of 20 models. :wtf:

He clearly had no idea of how the vehicle collision rules worked.

I will say this, though: 2nd ed. is a far more tactically demanding game to play. You can't simply run at the enemy and expect to get into close combat. There is no equivalent to the "board center scrums" so common in the newer versions.

I'll try to post a battle report one of these days so that people can see the differences.

sulla
17-07-2005, 05:14
That's certainly the line GW likes to sell people. :p

.

It's certainly my view too.. :p

3rd/4th certainly isn't perfect (think survivability of wraithlord/tyranid big bugs vs vehicles for example), but the amount of space saved without wargear cards, reduction of rulebooks and vehicle cards etc needed is a major plus for the new version.

Also, space marines work in this edition closer to how the fluff suggests (and before you make assumptions, only one of my armies that I currently play is space marines)...

I also prefer the speed of the current version compared to the old. Less time per game means more games or more time discussing the game just played...

Gazak Blacktoof
17-07-2005, 08:31
Have you done anything with strategy cards? Some of the results of those were horrific whilst others added an extra twist to the game.


My brother's working on an alagamation of 2nd and 3rd edition type rules with a bit of epic thrown in. The basic game play is similar to second edition with elements like over watch, different missions for both players and a proper psychic phase (based on a toned down warhammer varient). The system uses the IgoUgo system of epic using strategy ratings to determine retention of initiative (its used for other things too). The complexity of the rules should allow for a more interesting game (there are a few persistent effects like smoke rounds launched from mortars too) whilst elements like the army lists are stream lined. For example all of the weapons use the same penetration system based on their profile with very few special rules and they only use D6s, so no fiddling about trying to get that D20 from the bottom of the dice pot.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-07-2005, 04:33
It's certainly my view too..

Everyone has an opinion. The thing I try to look at is what criteria they cite as being desirable and which edition come off best in the comparison.


3rd/4th certainly isn't perfect (think survivability of wraithlord/tyranid big bugs vs vehicles for example), but the amount of space saved without wargear cards, reduction of rulebooks and vehicle cards etc needed is a major plus for the new version.

Here is where you are clearly wrong.

You didn't need lots of books to play 2nd. Each army had a codex, but almost all the major weapons were on a simple, easy to read card. Third ed. originally didn't have one, but later put a tear-out card in White Dwarf that was almost immediately made obsolete.

Yes, there was a rulebook, wargear supplement and a fairly small assortment of wargear cards. Last time I checked, you have codices, mini-codicies, battle source books and so forth.

Vehicles don't have datafaxes but given the special rules they probably should. Datafaxes are great - the hit tables are fun and far more realistic than anything out there currently.


Also, space marines work in this edition closer to how the fluff suggests (and before you make assumptions, only one of my armies that I currently play is space marines)...

Not even close.

First off, they are willing to change the fluff at a whim and are currently doing so because if you try to play according to the fluff, you will get crushed in every game. Marines most of all.

Nowhere in the fluff does it indicate that a frontal assault against prepared defenders with equal numbers should have a high probability of success but that is in fact the case in 3/4 edition. Take a squad of assault-equipped marines and send them over open ground against entrenched marines with bolters.

According to the fluff (and common sense) it should be a slaughter. In reality, the defenders will most likely lose.


I also prefer the speed of the current version compared to the old. Less time per game means more games or more time discussing the game just played...

What can I say? Results may vary.

I found that 3rd bogged down into interminable scrums and special rules arguments and that even if the game went quickly, it wasn't particularly challenging or enjoyable.

Once I returned to 2nd things changed. The games have more tactical depth, the actual events on the table are more interesting and I enjoy the game much more.

If I hadn't rediscovered 2nd edition, I eventually would have sold all my 40k stuff. I had already dumped a bunch of it.

Since getting back into it, I've been inspired to rebuild my dust-covered armies and build entirely new ones as well. My friends who were just as burned out and discouraged as I was, are also building up their armies.

So to me the comparison is pretty simple: Left to only the "current" version of 40k, I wouldn't play at all and neither would my friends. By going back and revisiting 2nd edition, I've got my friend interested in it, introduced new people to the game, and basically revitalized my hobby group.

Sojourner
25-07-2005, 09:30
I had mixed feelings. A lot of 2nd ed stuff was extremely guffy, like having to roll 15 different dice for the save mod of a chainfist.

However, Autocannon with 72" range? Yes please.

A meld of 2nd ed mechanics (streamlined) and third ed army lists would be...better, IMO.

Commissar von Toussaint
26-07-2005, 17:21
That's sort of what we're doing. We've cut down on a lot of the needless die rolling (no scatter for jump packs) and eliminated some book keeping (no persistent templates).

The game goes a lot faster and is still tactically demanding, though.

Gazak: We aren't using strategy cards because they really don't involve strategy. A better term would be "random events" and we think the game is random enough, thank you. :p

Sojourner
26-07-2005, 17:46
Personally, I'd have two variants of marines in this context. The conventional sort, who operate much the same as most other armies, and the fluff sort, who take on forces ten times their number and thrash them.

Commissar von Toussaint
28-07-2005, 14:21
Actually I think space marines are reasonably fluffy in 2nd ed.

The ability to shoot twice if they don't move is pretty big. They also have holdout pistols, giving even more options.

And of course thrown grenades actually kill stuff.

What Nurglitch says is pretty true, though. One could also argue that when marines are "killed" they're not actually dead, just unable to keep on fighting. IIRC, the Apothecary can "heal" a trooper outright 1/3 of the time. Another 1/3 he is stabilized but out of the battle (doesn't count as dead for VP) and only 1/3 "killed" marines actually dies.

One of the reasons I prefer 2nd is that it is far closer to the fluff than the succeeding editions.

Commissar von Toussaint
28-07-2005, 14:33
On another note, the discussion over on this thread (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=137959#post137959) has convinced me that some revisions/clarifications are needed on shooting rules as they relate to buildings.

Read the whole thing for the background (which I won't bother repeating here).

Instead, here are my proposed revisions for how buildings are dealt with shooting-wise.

Buildlings may be targeted (and unless they are tank-sized or smaller, they will be automatically hit) when they:

1. Are a pre-declared mission objective. This takes absolute precedence.
2. Are the closest target. In this case, however, there must be a known (visible or detected) enemy in it. Urban renewal is right out unless
3. There are no other valid targets.

I think that captures the intent and is pretty fair. It's also the way I've usually seen it played anyway.

Gazak Blacktoof
30-07-2005, 00:14
Gazak: We aren't using strategy cards because they really don't involve strategy. A better term would be "random events" and we think the game is random enough, thank you. :p


Yeah but they were a hoot sometimes.

Minor random events wouldn't be so bad, they just have to affect both sides to a similar degree (no viuses). Done properly they could force people to alter their tactics and liven up a game. Missions though should have a similar effect without irritating players when their favourite unit gets airstriked by a thunderbolt before the battle begins.


We seem to have lost our copy of the second edition rules, my friend had them we think and he might have sold them when he got rid of a box load of warhammer bits and bobs years ago. 'Tis a pitty really, I'll have to give E-bay a try and see if I can get one there.


On space marines- I'm sure a modified version of the faith system that the Battle Sisters currently use could be applied easily enough.

Commissar von Toussaint
31-07-2005, 04:37
Some stuff can add a twist but I prefer to do that through scenario generation rather than "gotcha!" type luck of the draw stuff.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-08-2005, 23:58
Okay, my plan is to take the existing revisions, add in the new stuff and present them as an erratta-type document.

That is, give page numbers from the main rules and reference clarifications and changes.

It's not as clear as writing the whole thing from scratch but it also steers clear of copyright violations.