PDA

View Full Version : 2nd edition?



Pages : [1] 2

Setrus
14-12-2006, 15:36
I admit it, I got into this hobby just when 3rd edition came out. (roughly a week after actually) As such I've never actually read or really cared (heresy! :eek: ) about the earlier edition since...well it's of no consequence to my own gaming.

But I've read a lot about it here on the forum and from the old geezers ( ;) ) it seems as if they fondly look back at it as something better then the current stuff.

Now admitedly the 'oldies' always say it was better before... ;)

But I do wonder, what was it that made this '2nd edition' so amazing? Why was it so much funnier? Was it really better or are you just looking back at old memories from when you were younger and everything was fun?

Come out oldies and tell the youngsters your stories, we promise we won't sit in your lap. ;)

Onisuzume
14-12-2006, 15:58
Well, the close combat was very different, rather like that of Necromunda.
The shooting wasn't as potent as it is now due to to-hit modifiers.
MEQs weren't as annoying as they are now because of Armour Save Modifiers.
Weapons had pre-defined stats. (strength, range, to-hit modifier, special effects)
Same goes for close combat weapons. (a pair of lightning claws could sacrifice all their hits for a single hit with improved vehicle armour penetration)
Weapons that would sometimes blow up. (Cyclone Missile Launcher, Assault Cannon)
Funnier wargear. (Hallucinogen Grenades)
Funny troops. (Madboyz, weirdboyz)
And they had Squats = instant fun.

And that comming from "youngster". :D (I'm 19)

Isambard
14-12-2006, 15:59
Spending up to half your points on characters.

'Hero-Hammer' - characters that could quite easily take apart the entire enemy army (except the opposing characters).

Transports were death traps. If they blew up, you lost ALL the models on the inside.

Terminators were nails - 3+ save on 2 dice (ie basic fail on a 1/1, 2/1 or 1/2).

Psionics dominated the game, and only Space Marines had a reasonable number of Psychic powers.

That all said and done, I still loved it!

Luke
14-12-2006, 16:01
2nd edition was awesome. My best games ever were under 2nd ed. So much more depth to it. Much more fun was to be had. So many modfiers, so many different dice. Good times.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
14-12-2006, 16:03
it probably is mainly nostalgia that makes us remember fondly (i know ive tried to blank out all the hours it took to resolve a single round of close combat, or the games that degenerated into an Overwatch stalemate)... but i think the real thing that people loved about 2nd ed was all the little details - this was before the idea of "streamlining" was thought up by the studio for 3rd ed.

some things were really complicated (by todays standards), even though they often had very little bearing on the game (clouds of smoke drifting, plasma balls growing one turn and shrinking the next). there was lots going on, and most of it was fun (even if a bit inconsequential). you didnt just throw a Vortex Grenade, the vortex could move randomly around the board for the rest of the game. you didnt just say your vehicle was popping Smoke Launchers: you actually fired the grenades in front of the vehicle, worked out where they landed, and how long they lasted - and different troops could see through the smoke to a different extent.

there was also a massive degree of customisation and more possibilities, thanks to Wargear Cards, Vehicle Cards, Psychic Power decks, Strategy Cards etc. weird and wacky stuff, like electrocuted vehicle hulls, SMs on (Combat) Drugs, special ammo etc.

things like tanks, Assassins, Commanders, Psykers etc were much harder in 2nd ed than they are now (which in terms of balance is a very good thing these days, dont get me wrong), so you got "more bang for your buck" - things were more destructive, and more cinematic in the process. and its those cimematic moments that people remember forever. like this one time...

CSM squad infiltrates to the top of a tower, just outside my deployment zone (i was playing BA), so they can aim their Heavy Bolters over all my cover from their vantage point. they were "Hidden" (which meant i couldnt shoot them), and in those days Marines really feared Heavy Bolters (i was expecting to loose a whole 10 Man Tac squad, if not more). i get the first turn, but what can i do? my Libby uses his Scanner to "detect" the squad (which means i can charge them, but only shoot them with Blast weapons, which i didnt have) no-one in my army could reach them, no-one could shoot them. this is when a lightbulb appears above my head: my Commander injects his Combat Drugs (doubling pretty much all his stats, including Movement) and declares a charge. i still didnt have enough movement to reach the side door of the tower, climb the stairs to the roof to get out and attack the CSMs... so i charge the tower instead! my Commander gets a massive number of attacks (SM Commander + 2 Lightning Claws, Bionics, Combat Drugs = uber) and tears the whole tower down to the ground. thankfully, the entire CSM squad fail their saves and get crushed in the rubble! the whole BA army cheers!

*sniff* and thats why people love 2nd ed. :D

in 4th ed, that would be:
...nothing stopped me shooting the CSM, so i killed 3. they shot back and killed 2 Marines.

whoop-de-doo, im sure going to remember that for 10 years... :p

~ Tim

Jedi152
14-12-2006, 16:05
It was based on the original Rogue Trader - meant for skirmish rules really, and as a result was a lot more detailed. Too detailed - it could take ages to resolve some stuff.

A few tidbits for you:

All grenades could be thrown - plasma, vortex and smoke (about 5 kinds) - there were a good 20+ types - then they made clouds/vortices that you have to move randomly every turn.

Being flamed could set you on fire - you would then leave your unit and have to be moved randomly every turn until you died, or were put out (and yes, other troops nearby could help to 'beat' you out!)

As Onisuzume said, being fired upon could lead you wargear to explode - a cyclone missile launcher needed to roll on a table everytime it was hit - which could result in every missile (You had 12 shots all game and had to keep count) firing in a random direction, hitting the first thing it came across.

Weapons had a armour penetrating roll - unfortunately this was madness - they were crazy. An example weapon might penetrate 2D6+D12+8.

Snotteef
14-12-2006, 16:08
I played 2nd edition from its inception until its demise and I can say only one thing: Thank God it's gone!

Honestly, compared to 3rd it was a terrible game. It took FOREVER, there weren't very many models on the table, CC system was just stupid and required you to roll separately for EVERY single model. That's not all: Characters were ridiculously overpowered, transports were useless and for 50 pts you could buy a wargear item that would (usually) destroy entire Ork and IG armies in one round (virus grenade anyone?... we finally banned it in our games), and the hidden and overwatch rules, while neat, were usually abused.

I do not look back on those days with fondness, I look back at them and I shudder. :eek:

Yes, I had some fun games and at the time there weren't any better alternatives, but all and all....... it sucked.

Bob Hunk
14-12-2006, 16:09
*Puts on slippers, sits in rocking chair and takes a long puff on his pipe*
I remember when Cityfight games were all fields ya know. ;)

Seriously though, when I fondly recall 2nd edition (and indeed Rogue Trader), it's usually some specific quirk of the game rather than the edition as a whole. 2nd edition was also a little more "cartoony" or "tongue in cheek", (but certainly still dark) and occasionally I for one miss certain things like Ork wargear, Hallucinogen grenades (with the 12 possible comedy hallucinations they caused), 'Nid strategy tables, etc etc...
2nd edition games had a lot more detail, but also took a lot longer to play a game. Overall (but not on every point) I think 4th edition is superior.

Grimn
14-12-2006, 16:10
Yes, it was far too complicated; modifiers for everything, obscene amounts of wargear, etc, etc.

But its complications made it far more entertaining (eg Abbadon vs the Gretchin).

And there was an awful lot of cardboard. I like cardboard.

Commissar von Toussaint
14-12-2006, 16:14
There are two 2nd editions.

The first is the one many people have mentioned: insane characters, hilarious wargear and all sorts of incredibly fiddly stuff. That's the version most people rip on as well.

The second is the one my group still plays: it uses the core engine to develop much more tactically interesting and realistic battles.

If you limit wargear, eliminate/streamline some of the fiddly stuff (no long-term effects from plasma, setting people on fire, etc.) and make a few basic fixes (models in destroyed vehicles get basic armor saves to survive, for example), you have an excellent game - far better than what GW currently has out there.

The game just makes sense. The system gives you more tactical options - I don't mean because you have insane wargear, but because your troops act like real troops.

Consider this: A basic marine today comes with a bolter and maybe grenades, which effectively do nothing in game terms other than influence assault.

A 2nd ed. marine comes with a bolter, bolt pistol and frag grenades which can actually be thrown/dropped on other models. Frag grenades are particuarly good at clearing rooms and taking out detected but not seen models.

It also had overwatch - a rule most people who hate never understood but an essential element for true tactical gaming.

Some people will talk about how games basically amounted to both armies hiding in cover and staying on overwatch, waiting for someone to blink. I mean no offense, but people who played like that simply have no knowledge of basic tactics. If you put your whole army on hiding and overwatch, you have given me a tremendous gift. Every person I have ever seen who did that got absolutely crushed.

There were other things - vehicles that could scoot across the board, weapons that could kill monsters in one shot, all manner of coolness.

While flawed, it is the superior version of 40k, no question.

sigur
14-12-2006, 16:16
Well....I have to say that to me, 2nd edition rules look more coherent. 2nd edition had more fluff but most and above all, GW wasn't quite that much of a pain (which it isn't that much at the moment, I admit. Currently, GW is treating us quite nicely actually) but one of the most important things that were great about 2nd edition was that it wasn't 3rd edition.

Take a game and hobby you really, really like. With fun fluff, fun miniatures and fun rules and then someone comes along takes 2/3rd of the hobby fun thing and throws it into the bin right before presenting a game of which you KNOW that it's aimed at much younger people than you are, along with much simpler rules, much less of basically everything. Along with that, everything you liked about this hobby became obsolete, quite some things got redesigned and many were just left out!

Example: Units in the quite terrible 2-pages army lists in 3rd edition rulebook. "Okay", you say now, "let's wait for the codex, until then I keep on playing 2nd edition. A few months later, your army's codex is released (remember, GW released about 3 codices in half a year back then) and still, many of your beloved units are gone! Forever! (I'm mainly referring to 3rd edition Codex Orks here; the greatest shame of GW) Or they have been reduced to a pathetic shade of what they used to be.

Basically, that's how you feel about your beloved hobbygamesystemwhatever now. It looks like something that comes out when someone tries to ...trim something fragile and nice with a chainsaw.:p

Apart from the terrible things 3rd edition did to the game, 2nd edition does have a certain appeal. All in all, the whole game looks so much more....like a whole thing, it looks more complete. Sure, the army lists were a bit....sub-optimum and the unit restrictions were quite useless. But still, the ruleset itself was very, very good.

nightgant98c
14-12-2006, 16:21
My friends and I considered breaking out the old rulebook and giving it a try, since we have a codex from 2nd for most of the armies, but the friend with the book moved, so now we can't.

Onisuzume
14-12-2006, 16:21
As Onisuzume said, being fired upon could lead you wargear to explode - a cyclone missile launcher needed to roll on a table everytime it was hit - which could result in every missile (You had 12 shots all game and had to keep count) firing in a random direction, hitting the first thing it came across.
I got the 3 books from the 2nd ed. starter right next to this comp. :angel:


Weapons had a armour penetrating roll - unfortunately this was madness - they were crazy. An example weapon might penetrate 2D6+D12+8.
Looks like it's "Name that weapon!" time.

My first thought was the assault cannon, but it wasn't.
Next I thought it was the multi-melta, which it wasn't. (was close though, D6+2D12+8)
So I decided I couldn't find it at all.
Btw the Lightning Claw had either 8+D3+D20+D6 armour penetration per hit, or 8+3D6+D20 if you'd combine all hits into 1 hit.

Shuriken Catapults were accually better then bolters!
And weapons had a *lot* more fluff to it.
Any of the newer Eldar players know what a Murehk is?
Or a Tuelean, or Buanna is?

And lets not forget how fun it was to hit with Distort Cannon.
It could move it's target to almost anywhere on the field. Including ±10 metres up into the sky or below ground. (which accually made it fun playing if it didn't just destroy it's target)

Zzarchov
14-12-2006, 16:21
In 3rd/4rth..when you build a cheese list it is kinda unfun, but you can play a game.

in 2nd Edition when you built a cheese list, your opponent may as well not even play, it was just useless. Pack up and berate your opponent for wasting your time deploying if he's gonne pull crap like that.


Oh, but two reasonable armies, built with fun.. oh man were those battles awesome. Each one so much more memorable than current ones.

Maus
14-12-2006, 16:24
I quit gaming before 3rd ed came out, and am just starting to get back into painting models and have no idea how 3rd or 4th ed play. I'm starting an IG beastmen army at Christmas, and I don't even have the new rulebook yet.

Now this thread is making me wonder some things:
*When a transport goes boom you don't lose its contents? What happens? I might buy me some chimeras or even go mechanised.
*Terminators don't have the 2d6 save? What's the point?
*What was that about armor save modifiers being gone?

Shee, I'm still trying to wrap my head around basic changes like 6" movement for everything and the near-absence of psionics. Everything seems disappointingly dumbed-down, though I am interested in the idea of more streamlined games. I originally got into 40k and WFB from "real" wargaming though, so I like complex rulesets.

Atherakhia
14-12-2006, 16:25
What was the best thing for me?
Two words: Conversion Beamer

I mean, -3 modifier to hit if what you were aiming for moved?
Pure genius

oh and I seem to remember that 2D12+D6+8 was a multimelta's armour penetration wasn't it?

Onisuzume
14-12-2006, 16:34
I quit gaming before 3rd ed came out, and am just starting to get back into painting models and have no idea how 3rd or 4th ed play. I'm starting an IG beastmen army at Christmas, and I don't even have the new rulebook yet.
I like the idea for the army, though maybe the Lost and the Damned (Codex: Eye of Terror) might be more appropiate...

Now this thread is making me wonder some things:
*When a transport goes boom you don't lose its contents? What happens? I might buy me some chimeras or even go mechanised.
Well, the troops don't automatically die, but might have to make an emergeancy evac. (they can still die if the vehicle goes boem)

*Terminators don't have the 2d6 save? What's the point?
They now just have a 2+ save on 1D6, they on the bright side; they gained a Refractor Field. (can be taken instead of rolling the armour save)

*What was that about armor save modifiers being gone?
We now got this silly thing called "AP" or Armour Penetration. (not the vehicle kind) Basicly; if the AP is equal to or lower then the armour your model has, you're toast.


Shee, I'm still trying to wrap my head around basic changes like 6" movement for everything.
Yeah, it means that squats would've gained a major movement boost, while the genestealers lot a lot.

oh and I seem to remember that 2D12+D6+8 was a multimelta's armour penetration wasn't it?
Yup, it also came with a big blast. (2")

Zzarchov
14-12-2006, 16:36
I quit gaming before 3rd ed came out, and am just starting to get back into painting models and have no idea how 3rd or 4th ed play. I'm starting an IG beastmen army at Christmas, and I don't even have the new rulebook yet.

Now this thread is making me wonder some things:
*When a transport goes boom you don't lose its contents? What happens? I might buy me some chimeras or even go mechanised.
*Terminators don't have the 2d6 save? What's the point?
*What was that about armor save modifiers being gone?

Shee, I'm still trying to wrap my head around basic changes like 6" movement for everything and the near-absence of psionics. Everything seems disappointingly dumbed-down, though I am interested in the idea of more streamlined games. I originally got into 40k and WFB from "real" wargaming though, so I like complex rulesets.


1.) The people get tangled in the wreckage for a turn and may take a wound 50-75% chance.
2.) Terminators get a 2+ save, which wouldn't seem that much better than power armour, except there are no more armour save modifiers. A weapon has an AP score (armour penetration), Ie, It will either bypass armour or it won't. Only plasma and lascannons can bypass terminator armour (and then they have a backup armour save on 5+)
3.) See above.

Maus
14-12-2006, 16:41
(1) I like the idea for the army, though maybe the Lost and the Damned (Codex: Eye of Terror) might be more appropiate...

(2) We now got this silly thing called "AP" or Armour Penetration. (not the vehicle kind) Basicly; if the AP is equal to or lower then the armour your model has, you're toast.
(1) The IG list is more versatile for what I want to do, but my plan is to start with ~2000 points of IG then buy the extras I'd need to field either an IG army or LatD.

(2) That's what I thought I'd read elsewhere. It seems rather silly and unfair if your regular weapons don't have any suitable AP for the army you're facing. I can see why people whine about MEq lists so much.

guillimansknight
14-12-2006, 16:44
it probably is mainly nostalgia that makes us remember fondly (i know ive tried to blank out all the hours it took to resolve a single round of close combat, or the games that degenerated into an Overwatch stalemate)... but i think the real thing that people loved about 2nd ed was all the little details - this was before the idea of "streamlining" was thought up by the studio for 3rd ed.

some things were really complicated (by todays standards), even though they often had very little bearing on the game (clouds of smoke drifting, plasma balls growing one turn and shrinking the next). there was lots going on, and most of it was fun (even if a bit inconsequential). you didnt just throw a Vortex Grenade, the vortex could move randomly around the board for the rest of the game. you didnt just say your vehicle was popping Smoke Launchers: you actually fired the grenades in front of the vehicle, worked out where they landed, and how long they lasted - and different troops could see through the smoke to a different extent.

there was also a massive degree of customisation and more possibilities, thanks to Wargear Cards, Vehicle Cards, Psychic Power decks, Strategy Cards etc. weird and wacky stuff, like electrocuted vehicle hulls, SMs on (Combat) Drugs, special ammo etc.

things like tanks, Assassins, Commanders, Psykers etc were much harder in 2nd ed than they are now (which in terms of balance is a very good thing these days, dont get me wrong), so you got "more bang for your buck" - things were more destructive, and more cinematic in the process. and its those cimematic moments that people remember forever. like this one time...

CSM squad infiltrates to the top of a tower, just outside my deployment zone (i was playing BA), so they can aim their Heavy Bolters over all my cover from their vantage point. they were "Hidden" (which meant i couldnt shoot them), and in those days Marines really feared Heavy Bolters (i was expecting to loose a whole 10 Man Tac squad, if not more). i get the first turn, but what can i do? my Libby uses his Scanner to "detect" the squad (which means i can charge them, but only shoot them with Blast weapons, which i didnt have) no-one in my army could reach them, no-one could shoot them. this is when a lightbulb appears above my head: my Commander injects his Combat Drugs (doubling pretty much all his stats, including Movement) and declares a charge. i still didnt have enough movement to reach the side door of the tower, climb the stairs to the roof to get out and attack the CSMs... so i charge the tower instead! my Commander gets a massive number of attacks (SM Commander + 2 Lightning Claws, Bionics, Combat Drugs = uber) and tears the whole tower down to the ground. thankfully, the entire CSM squad fail their saves and get crushed in the rubble! the whole BA army cheers!

*sniff* and thats why people love 2nd ed. :D

in 4th ed, that would be:
...nothing stopped me shooting the CSM, so i killed 3. they shot back and killed 2 Marines.

whoop-de-doo, im sure going to remember that for 10 years... :p

~ Tim



BUYING ALL 2ed CODEIS AND THE RULEBOOK!!


that sounds fun



you made me sad



i wish i could play that

Jedi152
14-12-2006, 16:45
I got the 3 books from the 2nd ed. starter right next to this comp. :angel:
I did until my mum threw the rulebook and the wargear book out. *sulks*


Looks like it's "Name that weapon!" time.

My first thought was the assault cannon, but it wasn't.
Next I thought it was the multi-melta, which it wasn't. (was close though, D6+2D12+8)
So I decided I couldn't find it at all.
Sadly not - i made it up! But it was close to a multi melta! :p

Wargear book: If you love your 40k, try to find it on eBay! Imagine a paragraph for just about every weapon in the 2nd ed. 40k universe (except new stuff, obviously - no gauss weapons or kai guns or anything like that). That includes all the cool stuff which never really made it into the game:

Graviton gun: Massive increases the gravity around a set area - vehicles and troops are reduced to a crawl.
Web guns: Webber, web pistol and heavy webber: Shoot a massive net of gooey strands that instantly set, tangling the victim in a mass of fibres.
Fun grenades: Stasis: Freezes time in the blast. Antiplant: Automatically kills all vegetation in the area. The amazing hallucinogen: makes troops ker-ay-zee. Effects range from shooting at every bush, to running randomly around the board flapping their arms madly!

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
14-12-2006, 16:52
I started with 2nd edition, so theres a kind of nostalgia factor for me with it :) I still like the oldschool necron raiders, eldar and of course the old school orks/gretchin. While I do think the game has evolved for the better, there are a few things I still miss from second edition. I find Rogue trader more interesting though as it had some races like Squats and Zoats that didnt make it to future editions.

Onisuzume
14-12-2006, 16:54
BUYING ALL 2ed CODEIS AND THE RULEBOOK!!


that sounds fun



you made me sad



i wish i could play that
Here's to make you even more sad; the black templars were a codex army back in the 2nd ed. :p

hallucinogen: makes troops ker-ay-zee. Effects range from shooting at every bush, to running randomly around the board flapping their arms madly!
Yup, it's funny to read, even if you read it once/month.
Oh, and it had only 10 different effects.

Darkseer
14-12-2006, 16:55
Thank god 4th edition is so much simpler.

A game of 40K currently takes up to 2 hours. Back then it could eat up a whole day!

DarthBinky
14-12-2006, 17:07
I don't really miss 2nd Edition either. While there were certainly some fun moments, there were plenty of not-so-fun moments. And taking a whole weekend to do a 3,000 point game just sucked.

I did like how vehicles worked, with regards to attackign them. A vehicle had all sorts of different points you hit- you rolled to see if you hit the left leg of the dreadnought, or the right arm, of the engine, or the main body. Then there was a chart (you needed the datafaxes from Dark Millennium) that told what happened, assuming you penetrated. It was fun making a Wraithlord (then called an Eldar Dreadnought) gimp around the field....

Hand to hand was just... crazy. Especially with characters, and then, especially psykers. If you had multiple saves, you got all of them- so you take a Chief Librarian, who came with power armor (duh), give him a conversion field (basically an Iron Halo but can blind Orks or IG if it makes a save) and the Psychic Shield power (basically an 3+ invul against each wound you take- many weapons did multiple wounds), and that Librarian will not take a wound, period- he'd get his armor save, but if he failed that he could take the conversion field, and if that failed too, he could take the psyshield. The only way you could beat him was to play Tyranids, use Psychic Scream (which was a psychic power that neutered enemy psykers), and swarm him with Genestealers.

I had Mephiston in my BA army, and he could literally walk into the middle of an Ork horde, slaughter every model, and come out unscathed. The current system's not perfect either, but it's much much better IMO.

The Orks had some crazy crazy weapons, like the "Lifta Droppa" which could pick up your tanks and then drop it on your squads. It wasn't perfect though, so it might drop the tank on the Ork's squads... There was also the infamous "Shokk Attakk Gun", which would teleport some grots into your armor- imagine a Terminator striding down a battlefield, stormbolter ablazin' and out of nowhere a grot appears inside the armor with the Marine, and they shred each other. Yeah it was fun. And I vaguely remember some crazy rocket with a grot riding it, bouncing around the battlefield crushing whatever it ran into....

Good times. :skull:

borka
14-12-2006, 17:08
Thank god 4th edition is so much simpler.

A game of 40K currently takes up to 2 hours. Back then it could eat up a whole day!

Yeah, we wouldn't want a whole day of fun, would we? Besides, a 1000p game didn't take much more than an hour if both opponents new their rules.

Borka

Minibull
14-12-2006, 17:09
I remember talking with a friend about an old version of 40k he used to play. He said his army had automated robots where you had to program their movement and they carried massive amounts of 'rad' bombs (something like each extra bomb that they carried would increase the blast radius ending up with a massive blast template). He'd run the robots to the center, leave the rest of his forces at the table edge, and blow themselves up.

Was that 2nd edition 40k? Rogue Trader? Or was he thinking of another game...?

Lord Malek The Red Knight
14-12-2006, 17:21
Sadly not - i made it up! But it was close to a multi melta! :p
couldnt it be a Multi-melta used in CC against a Vehicle (hence the +D6)? or something to do with Armour Piercing Ammo?

cant find my rulebook, sadly... :(

~ Tim

Phyros
14-12-2006, 17:29
Thank god 4th edition is so much simpler.

A game of 40K currently takes up to 2 hours. Back then it could eat up a whole day!


I didn't mind spending the weekend at the LGS playing. I'd rather have played 2 long games instead of 4 short ones over the course of the day. Playing the 4 would make me feel rushed.

Also, in my old gaming league, we never worried about Vortex Grenades or Virus Bombs....it was a gentleman's agreement to exclude those cards and it worked out well. Anyone who took them was ridiculed for needing that crutch to win and was generally blacklisted from playing.....only for a short time and they made good by not using them.

E-Arkham
14-12-2006, 17:29
Robots were in Rogue Trader. Was just looking at an old White Dwarf (issue 100ish) earlier today to see what the head on the old Eldar robot looked like.

The robot control thing was a mess. A complete mess; it'd take an hour just to figure out what the damned things would do. You had to craft a flowchart for each one in the force. Was a good idea, just entirely too clumsy.

Kep

The Emperor
14-12-2006, 17:36
I don't know what you did, but when me and my friends played, the only games of 40k that took a day were there 3,000 point a side megabattles we fought (3,000 points for each player, four players total). Even so, it did run on a bit long, but damn if it wasn't fun! I saw a thread around here going on about some unusual circumstances which the poster thought what was funny, and all I could think of "Something like that happened to us nearly every game". :D A couple examples...

1) Chaos Marines Vs. Blood Angels. The Chaos player has the Bloodthirster. I win first turn, and I shoot the Bloodthirster with a lascannon. Bloodthirster has 10 Wounds, lascannon does 2d6 Wounds. I roll a 10 and vaporize the bastard in one hit on the very first turn. Incidentally, that wasn't the only time I one-shotted a Bloodthirster. :D

2) Makari, Ghazghkull's Standard Bearer, with his 2+ "Luck" Save. I shoot the little bastard with everything I have, including heavy weapons, and he walks away unscathed (It was a point of pride to kill him in a game for me). It takes Commander Dante with his Inferno Pistol to finally put him down.

3) Shooting up a unit of Ork Warbikes, only for the damage vehicles to go out of control, crash into the Warbikes in front of them, damaging them, and sending THEM out of control. One of which plows straight for Ghazghkull and leaves him a bloody smear on the Warbikes tires. You should've seen the Ork players face. :D Especially since Ghazghkull could've called upon the power of the Waaagh! to make him invulnerable for a turn, but he didn't, because he thought Ghazghkull would survive (If you knew the number of rolls that would need to go wrong for Ghazghkull to die, you wouldn't have used the power, either).

4) Bjorn the Fellhanded fighting a Carnifex with Regeneration. He'd keep beating him, and would kill him, only for the Carnifex to regenerate and get back up. It was insane. That damn Carnifex just wouldn't stay down. Eventually Bjorn finished him off, but it only took the entire game.

5) Taking a Callidus Assassin (And before they introduced the temple assassins, a regular Assassin with Cameleoline) because I was deathly afraid of Warp Spiders (Once again, I was the Space Marine players. Blood Angels and Space Wolves). At the time, Callidus Assassins could replace an enemy infantry model. That means that you could pick an enemy infantry model, like a Warp Spider, remove him, and put the Callidus Assassin in their place. So I took a Callidus Assassin in order to eliminate the Warp Spiders. Warp Spiders, incidentally, fired template weapons with a -3 save modifier, I think, with an automatic wound. You had to take an Initiative test in order to avoid getting hit. They were vicious Marine killers.

6) Having my Land Raider rolling down the Ork left flank, and seeing the ENTIRE Ork army running away from it... except for a single Mekaniak who ran towards it. The Mekaniak then chucked a Vortex Grenade at the Land Raider, destroying it. The entire Ork army then turned around and ran back the way they came.

7) Fighting a Tyranid Assault (I think the mission was called), in which the Tyranids get to replace any destroyed units, and the object of the game was to have at least one surviving model. I ended the game with a Land Speeder, which I tried to zoom across the board (I had all sorts of speed boosting items on it, which I hoped would get it into cover. Unfortunately, some of them you had to roll for, so the distance which it could cover was uncertain), only to have it end up stranded out in the open and gunned down by the Hive Tyrant. And why did I zoom it across the board? Because it was threatened by a single Tyranid Warrior equipped for hand-to-hand... who couldn't actually attack it because it was a skimmer. I slapped myself silly when I remembered that after the battle, as I would've won had I just stayed put.

8) Fighting ANOTHER Tyranid Assault which saw Commander Dante and his Veteran Assault Squad Bodyguard swallowed up in combat with Genestealers. :eek: The hero of the battle was the Terminator Librarian, who teleported the only remaining survivors of my army, the Terminator Squad (down to 3 men), as far back to the table edge as possible, and then killed the only Tyranid creatures which could possibly reach them and hurt them in hand-to-hand combat! (A Lictor, three Genestealers, and two Hormagaunts. Well, he didn't kill them in hand-to-hand. He survived in hand-to-hand long enough to get to the psychic phase and unleash Lightning Arc, killing all six of his attackers. Talk about your lucky rolls! I couldn't believe it when the Lictor died. He was then killed on a charge by another unit of Genestealers). Thanks to his sacrifice, the only Tyranids in a position to reach the Terminators and attack them were a couple of Gargoyles, and their attacks bounced ineffectually of the Terminators armour, winning me the game.

Other things I liked about the game were how awesome Dreadnoughts were. Every single Dreadnought weapon was superior in some way to a regular version. For example, a dreadnought multi-melta could be fired as standard, OR fired as a heavy flamer, which made it great for when you wanted to roast a mob of gretchin (Multi-Melta's, incidentally, had a blast marker, which made them my favorite heavy weapon at the time). You could also roll a Sustained Fire die when firing the missile launcher, determining how many missiles it fired (So the Dreadnought missile launcher could fire either one shot, or 1-3 shots, though with a chance to jam). Rapid Fire also used to be a Marine only rule. If Marines moved, they could fire their bolters and bolt pistols once up to maximum range. If they didn't move, they could fire their bolters and bolt pistols twice up to maximum range.

Another thing I liked was Psychology, like in Warhammer Fantasy. You had Fear, Hatred, Frenzy, Terror, Stupidity, etc. Another great rule was allowing special and heavy weapon troopers in a unit to fire at a different target then the rest of their unit. Which meant that a lascannon armed trooper in a squad could fire at an enemy tank, while the rest of the squad could fire at enemy infantry. Why they didn't keep that rule in 3rd or 4th I'll never understand. Certainly makes a lot more sense than having the guy with the lascannon firing at a Land Raider, and the other guys in his unit being forced to shoot at the Land Raider, too, rather then the enemy infantry bearing down on them. Tanks could also do the same, targetting different units.

One of my favorite things was also movement. I liked having units with different move rates, and being able to run. It was great having a Genestealer be faster then a Guardian, who was faster then a Marine, who was faster then a Squat. Gave the different races great character. And of course, choosing whether it was better to fire or run, doubling your movement, was also nice.

2nd edition had its problems, yeah, like hand-to-hand, but it was still a fun game. All-in-all, I wish 3rd edition had been more of an evolution of that game, rather then throwing things out wholesale and starting from scratch. 40k would be a better game, nowadays, if they'd done so. Oh well. At least with 4th they seem to be bringing back some of the things that made 2nd edition so fun.

BodhiTree
14-12-2006, 17:42
Even though I played many games in 2nd Ed., I don't ever recall finishing one. We usually got bogged down in some intensive rules, even though we were having fun. I just always felt bad for my troops, lowly Imperial Guardsmen barely had anything going for them, tanks were perhaps better at the time, but I couldn't afford many of them when I was younger.

Smokedog
14-12-2006, 17:45
Yep 2nd edtion hold fond memeories....

I am currently working on a mix between 4th edition and 2nd edition rulebook. I have tried to keep things simpleir. I should have it finished (in its raw state) in the next few days. Let me give you the run down:

• New orders: Sustained Fire, Over watch, Take cover, run and charge
• New Armour modifiers and hit modifiers
• Simplified cover saves
• Simplified terrain effects.
• Simplified Games phases so you don’t forget an action.
• More emphasis on leaders and characters and morale
• More emphasis on psychology.
• More detailed rules and damage for vehicles.
• Movement stat introduced.
• New rules for damaging buildings.
• More rules for psychics.


Be posting it soon. (its taking me a long time to finish it so it will be in pdf) :P

Rowenstin
14-12-2006, 17:51
In response to the OP, I can write what I remember from changing to 3rd edition from 2nd:

My marines were incredibly hard. They had an armor that actually worked now, and the Know no fear rule meant they were there to stay.

Basic weapons killed things, too. Previously, heavy weapons ruled because everything was behind cover and the penalties to hit made them very difficult to hit anything that actually counted, but heavy weapons used to have targeters (+1 to hit) that were great to counter cover modifiers. Also, heavy weapons were much, much more powerful than basic weapons. If you think an assault cannon is powerful now, it's a pale shadow of what was in 2e.

In 3e our jaw dropped when I killed a carnifex with storm bolters. That was unthinkable in 2e (now it may be too, but remember this was before the codex)

Also, characters were much more killable. My vanilla terminator commander with thunder hammer was untouchable by bsic troops in 2e, so I threw him confidently against a tac squad, and again it was a shock when the veteran sergeant smashed him with a power fist.

You could put people in transports. They were a death trap in 2e.

Games played in 1/3rd of the time.

And there was no more random details, like tank turrets being blown off and falling on top of your commander (tank turrets were the most dangerous weapon in the galaxy), and everything else that made 2e so much 2e.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
14-12-2006, 17:56
And there was no more random details, like tank turrets being blown off and falling on top of your commander (tank turrets were the most dangerous weapon in the galaxy),...
quoted for truth! :D

~ Tim

Phyros
14-12-2006, 18:11
A few more stories, either heard of or witnessed:

A single gretchin (grot) armed with an Autogun killed 2 Terminators with Storm Shields. Work out those odds you Mathhammer-ists!

A Shokk-Attak Gun shoots a Terminator, which then gets inhabited by snotlings who randomly move and shoot the model. It turned and shot its assault cannon into the back of a Dreadnought, which exploded and killed a Level 4 Librarian next to it.

I win a Tyranid Assault against an IG army which included a Baneblade and a then-new Culexus Assassin. I managed to wound the assassin before the game started, negating his special invisibility rule, making him easier to kill.

A Lictor taking out a Dreadnought, only to be killed by it's death throes.

Orks always going first against Tyranids due to Strategy Rating.

Me taking 5 uber Carnifexes (T9 Regenerating 10 Wounds Each) against a powergamer who always took 20 Wolf Guard all with Assault Cannons. After that game he rarely came to the store. Before you call me a powergamer, that was the only time I took 5 fully-kitted Carnifexes.

Good times.

Commissar von Toussaint
14-12-2006, 18:18
I was in a hurry earlier, so I left out perhaps one of the coolest items from the One True Edition (2nd):

Thudd Gun Template.

Now that thing is awesome. You could also shoot into your own troops while they were engaged in close combat.

I remember one game where a tyranid player was simply mopping the floor with our marines. We had one terminator left and he was surrounded by four genestealers. But this guy kept making his saves, so in frustration the hive tyrant fired a venom cannon into the fray, which used the Thudd Gun Template. (basically this was four linked templates that could loop around).

So the hive tyrant hit on a 2+ but rolled a 1. The shot scattered onto a genestealer and them the template neatly wrapped around the terminator, missing him entirely and wasting all of the genestealers! :skull:

I see a lot of people bring up characters that were hard to kill, but they are still hard to kill. I see people whining about cheese - as if it's gone away some how.

First off, games are what you bring to them. A beardy cheese-monger in 2nd can be just as beardy and annoying in 3/4th.

The question is what the core rules let you do.

In 2nd, they simply let you do a lot more. With solid army selection, some rules streamlining and a good attitude, you will have some of the best gaming you'll ever get.

I don't get how people say "Oh, that took forever, hours for a single game." I honestly don't get that.

First off, these aren't timed events - you play to enjoy, not to "get it done." I would much rather get a single, solid, tense game where I have to think in than play two or three "quickie" games where I heardly break a mental sweat.

Second off, while I don't know you people personally, I really don't understand what you found so hard. The game goes pretty quickly if you know what you are doing. I find close combat goes very fast - it's such a solid system GW recycled it for Lord of the Rings.

You roll model by model, sure. But don't you still do that? At least this way you know who is fighting whom, get it over with and move on, instead of rolling buckets of dice, announcing specialy items, swinging invisible power fists, randominizing mixed armor saves, trying to calculate who gets to die and so forth.

I'm sure I'm not your typical gamer. I came to this hobby from board games and I enjoy crunching numbers.

Could the rules have been laid out better? Yep. Should things be streamlined? Absolutely.

Our group already did that. No persistent weapons, no psykers and limited wargear and you're ready to roll.

People talking about killer characters with multiple saves are (again) folks I don't quite understand. If you layer wargear on someone, he becomes a point sink that wastes most of your firepower. Not only that, but for all the "unkillableness" of the saves, the weapons were so much more deadly that just about everything could get whacked in one go, regardless of what you put on them.

Take the famous terminator with field save combination. Well, if you hit him with a lascannon, the terminator armor is about worthless. Then it comes down to a 4+ save. Hardly unkillable.

The librarian mentioned above would run somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 points - about the cost of a terminator squad! I guarentee the terminators will get a lot more done on the battlefield.

Our group made a rule that characters can't hold objectives. That eliminated a lot of interest in super-hard characters right there.

Characters were tough in hth, no question, but getting into hth was a heck of a lot harder. If you didn't like the way it was going, you could always leave and then blast the crap out of the now-alone character.

Basically, 2nd gets a lot of bad press from people who didn't understand/get into it and GW who wants people to think that what they are selling now is the only/best version you can play.

The Emperor
14-12-2006, 18:44
I was in a hurry earlier, so I left out perhaps one of the coolest items from the One True Edition (2nd):

Thudd Gun Template.

Now that thing is awesome. You could also shoot into your own troops while they were engaged in close combat.

I remember one game where a tyranid player was simply mopping the floor with our marines. We had one terminator left and he was surrounded by four genestealers. But this guy kept making his saves, so in frustration the hive tyrant fired a venom cannon into the fray, which used the Thudd Gun Template. (basically this was four linked templates that could loop around).

So the hive tyrant hit on a 2+ but rolled a 1. The shot scattered onto a genestealer and them the template neatly wrapped around the terminator, missing him entirely and wasting all of the genestealers! :skull:

ROFTLMAO!!! Hahah, I actually burst out laughing like a madman when I read that. Thanks for making my day. :D


I don't get how people say "Oh, that took forever, hours for a single game." I honestly don't get that.

Yeah, there was a time when my friends used to play a game every day after school. It was awesome.


First off, these aren't timed events - you play to enjoy, not to "get it done." I would much rather get a single, solid, tense game where I have to think in than play two or three "quickie" games where I heardly break a mental sweat.

Agreed. Hell, when playing Dawn of War, I find myself doing everything I can to stretch the games out. Who cares if a game's long or short? So long as it's fun, and it's with friends, then it doesn't matter how long it takes. Besides, that's what point values are for. If you want quick games play small points value battles. You want long lasting games, the kind that take an entire weekend (Which we used to do all the time), then take larger points value armies (like, say, 4,000 points a side).


Second off, while I don't know you people personally, I really don't understand what you found so hard. The game goes pretty quickly if you know what you are doing. I find close combat goes very fast - it's such a solid system GW recycled it for Lord of the Rings.

It had its ups and downs. Personally I think it was mostly downs (Depended, really. Space Marines versus Chaos Marines was fine, but Genestealers, with their huge number of attacks, or Orks, with their huge numbers, not so much). Though I agree with you about people calling it "Herohammer". Yeah, characters were tough, but not unstoppable. One game, I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to hack through a mob of Gretchin with an Eversor Assassin. I kept wishing the little bastards would break and run, already, so that I could get at the character I was targeting, but they refused to go anywhere.


People talking about killer characters with multiple saves are (again) folks I don't quite understand. If you layer wargear on someone, he becomes a point sink that wastes most of your firepower. Not only that, but for all the "unkillableness" of the saves, the weapons were so much more deadly that just about everything could get whacked in one go, regardless of what you put on them.

Take the famous terminator with field save combination. Well, if you hit him with a lascannon, the terminator armor is about worthless. Then it comes down to a 4+ save. Hardly unkillable.

... or a Bloodthirster. :D Good point, though. In 4th, a 3-Wound character with protection against Insta-Kill would have to be shot and wounded three times by a lascannon to die. That same character in 2nd edition would be extremely lucky not to die in one shot (and only if you rolled snake eyes when rolling to wound).


Characters were tough in hth, no question, but getting into hth was a heck of a lot harder. If you didn't like the way it was going, you could always leave and then blast the crap out of the now-alone character.

Not to mention that every combatant got an extra attack die for each guy who attacked before them. Yeah, a Space Marine Captain might hack through an Ork with ease, but the Ork after that will get an extra Attack and a +1 to his Combat Score (Effectively a +1 WS). The Ork after that will get two extra Attacks and +2 to his Combat Score. The Ork after that will get three extra Attacks and +3 to his Combat Score, etc. Since you could pile six guys onto one model, that meant that that sixth Ork would have +5 Attacks and +5 WS. A match for any character. And if he died? Well, that Ork mob could then throw ANOTHER six guys on top of him. Did I mention that it took forever for my Eversor Assassin (WS 8) to chop through a mob of Gretchin (WS 3)? That's why. That sixth Gretchin ended up with 6 Attacks and an effective WS 8. The only thing my Eversor had going for him by the time that sixth Gretchin attacked was the ability to parry.

sukigod
14-12-2006, 18:48
A few words...

Vortex Grenades
Overwatch
Strategy Cards!

The word of the day with 40K 2nd Ed was RANDOM.

Especially orks. Loved Makari's un-modifyable 2+ save. I remember the ork warbikes being the most dangerous thing for me, it's why I stopped using them until 4th Edition (a bit gun shy I was). Moving Squgg markers every turn hoping they ate something else.

Torgo
14-12-2006, 18:50
The thing to remember about the "fun" random stuff from second edition, is that for every turret or crashing bike taking out something important, there were a dozen or more times where it ended up in the middle of nowhere. 2nd edition was full of random low percentage stuff, that you had to constantly roll for, and usually did nothing. 2nd edition wasn't that much more complex than 3rd4th edition, but it definitely had a lot more fiddly stuff. Some people prefer the fiddly stuff, which often had character, and some was even fun. But those who prefer the newer editions like the streamlined system. Not because we're too stupid to understand the old system, but because we think the new system plays better.

lapis_lazuli
14-12-2006, 19:02
My first experiences of 40k were in 2nd ed, so it will always hold a special place in my heart. It's true what people say, there were far more memorable moments. But it's also true that it was insanely complex and time consuming. I'll admit I breathed a sigh of relief when 3rd ed came out, but that was more because I was young and easily confused, plus I regularly played four or five-way games.

Nowadays, being a bit older and more interested in narrative-style games as well as only playing one-on-one, I wouldn't mind playing some 2nd ed once more. I still have all the necessary books, too... hmm... :)

Grindgodgrind
14-12-2006, 19:18
I used to play 2nd ed. with my little brother every day, we had some cracking games. If you think Abaddon is a hardcase now, he was beyond reasoning in 2nd edition.

I must say that Orks had so many interesting units back then, it was a shame that they were so badly reduced for 3rd edition and onwards....

Soyweiser
14-12-2006, 19:38
Two words: Conversion Beamer


I have four :). Planned to use them on a genestealer cult army together with my 3 tarantulas (highly effective things they where, when twinlinked meant very deadly, instead of likely to hit, killed the avatar with those in turn one way to many times). But then life and 3e happened, and I stopped warhammer for a long time.

Skyweir
14-12-2006, 20:36
The 2ed rules were great for small games, but if you want larger things it was just to much of a hassle. I like to be able to have a 40k game without regulating the entire afternoon to it.
Now, the rules were also used in Gorkamorka, a gem of a game, where they were much better because the game was made to simulate small gangs of orks battleing it out.
I'm in the "thankful it's gone" category, but I morn the loss of Gorkamorka. Necromunda never had the same charm.

The Song of Spears
14-12-2006, 20:42
I think the best way to say that 2nd ed was possibly better was that it was simply more involved, non-tournament style -play.

I could do a lot of practical maneuvers in 40 then, such as Overwatch that really made sense in a tactical way.

Not all of it was very well implemented, but the point was, the option was there to do more than assault or shoot.

Psyonic powers were much more diverse and not simply special attacks/buffs

if i wanted to shoot into CC at the cost of my own troops , i could, if i wanted to run away from someone assaulting me, i could, and on and on. it was much more about the strategy of war, and not so much the rock paper scissors + dice it tends to be now.

Smokedog
14-12-2006, 20:50
Just out of interest do you remember how the shooting into combat worked?

inq.serge
14-12-2006, 20:55
I heard that Aby was THE best spec.char in 2ed, only brother something(Tycho or Corlumbo) was THE Aby killer of the game.

Where can I find the 2ed rules for Aby? I just want to see them (Just for fun).

Phyros
14-12-2006, 21:01
Did I mention that it took forever for my Eversor Assassin (WS 8) to chop through a mob of Gretchin (WS 3)? That's why. That sixth Gretchin ended up with 6 Attacks and an effective WS 8. The only thing my Eversor had going for him by the time that sixth Gretchin attacked was the ability to parry.

Yeah but the Eversor had the Combat Master skill, or something like that. Every opponent after the first he got and additional +1 WS and +1 A, so he's always one up on the competition. I loved the Combat drugs he was on and the fact that after he was finished in one combat he had a chance of following up and fighting another combat sequence in the same turn.

The Song of Spears
14-12-2006, 21:10
Just out of interest do you remember how the shooting into combat worked?

Not verbatim, i would have to go get the book, and i am not at home :P

I think it was as simple as a d6 roll but to what target number i forget...

The Emperor
14-12-2006, 21:17
Yeah but the Eversor had the Combat Master skill, or something like that. Every opponent after the first he got and additional +1 WS and +1 A, so he's always one up on the competition. I loved the Combat drugs he was on and the fact that after he was finished in one combat he had a chance of following up and fighting another combat sequence in the same turn.

Damn, I forgot all about that. Man, my memory's getting hazy. :cries: Still took forever to mow through them, though.

Zothos
14-12-2006, 21:42
Goo bombs
Lifta Droppas
Shokk attack guns
Pulsa rokkits~

aah the memories.

I played Eldar back in RT and 2nd Ed. I once had a Eldar dreadnought (wraithlord to all you young'ns out there) killed by a missile to the head. Now if anyone recalls the damage tables they will recall the result where the spirit stone inside would be destroyed and cause the thing to fall in a random direction and suck in anything within a certain radius into the warp. This unfortunate happenstance happened to catch my farseer in it, but damn it was funny.

In answer to the original question, both 2nd edition and 4th have their advantages. I am of the opinion that a superior game to both versions lies in combing the strong points of both. 2nd was a little too much, 4th is a bit dumbed down, but I love them both~

Bloodknight
14-12-2006, 21:50
Shooting into combat: you shoot at the model/unit you intent to hit and then randomize hits between the fighters. 1-3 own unit 4-6 opponent unit, for example. The ratios changed by how many were in combat with how many models. Example: 1 SM against 5 Guardsmen: 1 SM 2-6 Guard.
The most hilarous moment I ever had was when a friend of mine fired a heavy bolter into a CC between Marneus Calgar and a squad of my guardsmen, managed to hit only Marneus and killed him (one shot got through and did 4 damage).

studderigdave
14-12-2006, 21:56
when a handful of harliquins could run through entire armies....

Bloodknight
14-12-2006, 21:57
Isn´t that sig a bit long?

The Song of Spears
14-12-2006, 22:31
You know DnD did a neat thing that i think could work in 40k. While the 40k rules are essentially simple, so are the basic DnD combat rules. But for those of us who prefer a bit more option/simulation they released a book ( i forget the title) that had much more involved rules for combat, casting in combat, combat maneuvers etc...

GW could release a optional Rulebook of all the rules and gear and such that were taken out of 40k (within reason, as i am sure some things just may not fit in anymore)

Aphex Geek
14-12-2006, 22:49
My favourite memories in second edition...

Large flame template for deathspinners!

Eldrad powering up the staff with force cards in the psychic phase to strength 10 then carving his way through waves of tanks... the good old days!

Asq_Dak
14-12-2006, 22:55
And let's not forget that each individual model in the unit could shoot at the closest, easiest small threat or big threat, so missile launcher the tank, bolt gun the billies...

Swords could parry

fast moving and cover made you harder to hit

displacer fields

shock attack gun firing snotlings

And not every game took too long.

Col. Dash
14-12-2006, 23:18
I loved 2nd edition. Whoever says it takes a long time is on crack. We figured out after a while to play it, it took about an hour per 1000 points. Combat actually made sense. There was no bucket of dice or these stupid averages we have to deal with now. Each model fought each model individually in close combat and you got plusses for each model in turn that was ganing up. 5 orks on a marine, no plusses for the first ork, next ork had +1, next had +2 etc etc so you could take down a powerful model with sheer numbers possibly. My death company was all armed with chainswords and powerfists so I could get a parry for having the chainsword and the strength of a powerfist, and for whoever was wondering who the badass who could take down Abbadon, it was Mephiston. Also, characters were not unbeatable by regular joes, I had a chaos marine with an autocannon take down a souped up hive tyrent in the first shot of the game. And lets not forget the atrocity they made of the orks in 3rd edition from the mean machine they were in 2nd.
My favorite part of the transition was talking to one of the GW higher ups, dont remember his name but he was in WD all the time, was kinda skinny with glasses, no mustache. We asked him at a convention how 3rd edition would effect our army lists and would we still be able to play the same lists we had. He answered the old lists were perfectly compatable and would only require some slight tweaks. Mother#%^%$#&^% %(*hole! And this is why I hate GW with a passion, the lying &^%$ers. They destroyed my great game and turned it into this POS tourney centered crap it is now, thanks.

polymphus
15-12-2006, 00:34
Heh. When I was first starting 40K (back in the 3rd edition) I was quite young and didn't want to spend all that money on a rulebook, so I brought one off an internet auction site. I didn't read the fine-print properly and got the 2nd edition rulebook, codex imperialis, wargear book and dark millenium instead.
When I saw the 3rd edition rulebook I was rather disappointed. Where's my mole mortar? I want a thud gun! *cries*

IJW
15-12-2006, 01:22
Next I thought it was the multi-melta, which it wasn't. (was close though, D6+2D12+8)
I though the multi-melta was 5d6+8? Or did they change it from 4d6 damage to 2d12 from 2st to 2nd ed?
Coming back to the game this year, I was amazed at all the complaints about how bad the multi-melta, only to understand after discovering that it no longer has a 4" diameter template. :cries:
The very first game I ever played that had a multi-melta in we didn't have the full rulebook, and assumed that because multi-lasers were following fire, obviously multi-meltas must be as well. Two turns later, everything within 24" was dead, including the buildings... :eek: Note to younger viewers - multi-shot weapons in RT used the following fire rule, which basically meant that you got to fire again if the previous shot managed to wound.



Shuriken Catapults were accually better then bolters!
Grumble grumble short-range shotguns grumble grumble.



Any of the newer Eldar players know what a Murehk is?
Or a Tuelean, or Buanna is?
Can't remember the first two, but the Buanna or Reaper was the Shuriken Cannon - first carried by the Harlequins, with the bio-explosive ammo.

Someone was talking about conversion beamers - they were really scary things, I've still got a couple knocking around somewhere. Not only did they wound almost anything, but they also made BIG craters.
One nasty tactic I used a couple of times was to have two Dev squads - one with four beamers and one with four missile launchers. You couldn't even hide behind a hill, because the four beamers would make so many craters that the hill wasn't there anymore...

Brother Lysander
15-12-2006, 01:34
Ah 2nd edition...

*Goes all misty eyed and stares into empty space*

...Those were the days.

In all honesty, I only miss aspects of it, and I'd second the comment that a good combination of 2nd and 4th edition rules could produce THE 40K game.

BL

Gensuke626
15-12-2006, 01:50
Hearing all of these stories just reminds me of a game I once watched. @nd Ed Nids vs Guard. Genestealer horde in a city fight against gaurd defenders...The game was the usual blast em to bits affair, but the last turn was the best.

The Colonel, his Medic and retinue were fleeing the battle Field, they were in a building when a swarm of stealers got to them. The Colonel stepped up bravely to face down 20+ genestealers. The medic and the vox operator ran for it and the rest is best told in a Narrative.

Col. Helsher took a glance back over his shoulder. The medic and comms operator were safely out of the building and hustleing, as he had ordered. To his left and his right were a literal wave of claws and teeth. It'd be only a few moments before they were upon him. Drawing his Bolt Pistol, Helsher began to fire into the oncoming tide, a prayer to the Emperor drifting from his lips. As the first genestealer punctured his belly, he released the weight in his off hand. "The Emperor protects..." he whispered as the device clattered to the ground. In a heartbeat the orb imploded and ripped open a hole into the immaterium. The Genestealers never knew what hit them...

dblaz3r
15-12-2006, 02:07
The last game i played was 2nd edition, I haven`t played for some 10years or so but am in the stages of restarting an army or 2. Its quite sad to hear that the latest edition is rather dumbed down, my favourite parts of a battle were the random comical things going on, snotlings in terminator armour, dreads walking in circles falling on people, out of control bikes etc. I`m not even close to playing a game yet but no doubt it will be just as enjoyable as when I last played, hopefully. Shame my beloved ork hordes have lost alot of the character that made them so appealing, but time will tell what happens with them and the rules in future I guess. Pointless post but it is my first.

Gensuke626
15-12-2006, 02:17
welcome to warseer dblaz3r. Yes, Orks lost a lot between 2nd and 3rd...and we're waitng on 4th, but you can still act like a 2nd ed ork even is da roolz don't support it...

Commissar von Toussaint
15-12-2006, 02:30
There is no question that 2nd ed. was truly a gamer's edition, not a tournament edition.

I will freely admit the successor editions are better here. Of course, I have zero interest in a tournament-style wargame.

We've talked a lot about the chrome, but there are a few nitty-gritty things that newer players should know about.

For one thing, all models had a movement stat. Humans moved 4", eldar 5" and tyranids 6" (squats went 3").

Of course there were various exceptions. Jump pack troops went faster, as did certain varieties of demon, tyranid and so forth.

Now in addition to different movement rates, units also could do something called running.

If you didn't shoot, the squad could move at double pace. Now this added a huge amount of tactical options to the game, as I'm sure you can imagine. You might have a fire-support squad with heavy weapons set up in one area, and then use other squads who run from cover to cover as a maneuver element. In fact, that was the best way to do it (just like real life).

Things that moved faster were harder to hit. Thus things like eldar and genestealers and vehicles could gain protection from shooting through superior speed. Again, just like real life.

Now units also had two other modes: Hiding and Overwatch.

Hiding was simply where the unit put its head down and crouched behind cover. They could not be seen or shot at unless models got very close to them or used some sort of detection device (scanner, bionic eye, heightened senses).

If these were used, a hidden unit became detected, and could be engaged with template weapons - such as frag grenades or flamers.

So you would have a situation where a strong point is held by a squad. This may be an exposed position, open to a lot of incoming fire. So you have the squad hide. Now it can't be directly engaged.

But it can be shelled and you can have units run up and try to burn them out - again a very realistic situation. Contrast this with the current edition. Any squad that has LOS can basically blast the crap out of them, even using direct fire. So the notion of working a squad forward, or putting infiltrators in a key position and then springing them late in the game, or using them as a lurking threat is completely gone. That means you have a far less tactically interesting game.

This brings me to overwatch. Overwatch was a simple rule that some people made waaaay too complex - I'm not sure why. It was reaction fire, that's all.

A unit that didn't move or shoot during its own turn could "hold its action" so to speak and fire during the opponent's movement phase.

At first glance, this is insanely powerful, and a lot of people never got past the fact that they could be shot at during their own turn. :eek:

So your key unit/vehicle that was out of LOS last turn and will scoot back into cover this turn may actually get hit when it passes through that open space.

There's no question that this is tactically hard to deal with. You can't simply rely on IGO-UGO to hide your best stuff. If it moves out into the open even for a moment, the waiting enemy will shoot at it. This is of course highly realistic.

We've all dealt with the current situation: A squad advances on the objective, only to have the defenders run out, shoot them, and then charge while the squad stands their picking their noses. Or a fast vehicle moves from cover to cover, always staying out of LOS and therefore avoiding being shot at. These aren't real-world tactics. Yes, they are tactics in the sense that they can help win the game, but they make a mockery of any attempt or pretense at realism.

Now there are drawbacks to overwatch. Models moving into our out of cover get a -1 to hit mod. Normal targeting rules (closest or easiest) also apply. So one way to prevent overwatch is to "draw the fire" of them with something big, close and slow. Or, you could have a vehicle race out of cover into the open, gaining a bonus for speed and the overwatch.

Again, these are real-world tactics.

At its core, 2nd was a better game if you want to know what real battles are like. The system was easy to learn and easy to use. Where the wheels came off was all the fiddly stuff that was really a holdover from RT, which was nothing but fiddly stuff.

The solution is pretty simple: dump the fiddly stuff. No persistent templates, limits on wargear, simplified psyker rules - basically a single 8 1/2 x 11 page of notes will solve any issues you have. We put a list together on Portent and there was a thread here on what fixes should be adopted once upon a time.

The point is that 2nd didn't have to be dumped, a modest revision would have made it the game it was supposed to be and can be, if you put a tiny bit of work into it. Our gaming group has been avidly playing 2nd for a couple of years now and we're still adding models, armies and equipment. We own all the codices (thanks to ebay) and are having a blast.

It's a shame GW never did what TSR did and simply made a basic and advanced set of rules. If they did, they'd bring a lot of players back.

2nd ed. was clearly advanced. If you played the game well, you gained an insight into modern small-unit combat. The best you'll get from the current version is an insight into dice-rolling and GW marketing techniques.

dblaz3r
15-12-2006, 02:44
Thankyou for the warm welcome gensuke62 its nice to be here. My general orkishness will never waiver, once an ork alwayz an ork. My fondest memories were the many times I tried to use the warp only to have my head explode, usually resulting in simultaneous laughter from myself and my combatant. Looking forward to the day I play my return game.

chromedog
15-12-2006, 02:55
QUOTE [Onisuzume]"Any of the newer Eldar players know what a Murehk is?
Or a Tuelean, or Buanna is?" (Sorry, couldn't find the original post, so cut & pasted it.)

From memory, the murehk is the shuriken pistol, and the Tuelean is the firepike. The shuriken pistol was not in the RT rulebook, only coming in with a 'chapter approved' article in WD. Likewise, the scatter laser - which came out with the war walker.

Commissar von Toussaint
15-12-2006, 02:58
I dug out the thread.

Here it is, (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3226)along with the .pdf for the Portent rules revisions.

GWvsJohn2
15-12-2006, 03:02
ah, 2nd ed. Pulsa Rokkits were the bane of my existence

The thing that makes me prefer later editions is that in 3rd and 4th every model matters. In 2nd ed, anyone without a heavy weapon was effectively extra CC attacks for a character.

Lord Hjamlar
15-12-2006, 04:59
Can anyone tell me what were the diffrences betwean:
a) Power Axe
b) Power Mace
c) Chaisword
d) Chainaxe
and what were the rules of Mole Mortars?!

Thx...

Half Eldar
15-12-2006, 07:40
I had a friend back in middle school who had Codex Ultramarines and Codex Eldar, and the 2nd ed. rules. He got them because he really liked the background, and I did too so I played some games with him. Yes, we were literate.

So then I and a couple other friends actually buy into it when 3rd ed. comes out. The first thing we do is groan about this horrible AP system someone concocted because apparently we can't subtract and add.

Seriously, if they just tossed in save modifiers and a reworked overwatch again I think I'd be happy. Useful grenades would be nice, as would special weapons being allowed to target separately. And shooting modifiers rather than cover saves, with the ability to get one's save if it. And invulnerable/field saves being available after an armour save. Seriously, the WHFB folks can remember it. It's not hard.

So it turns shooting less deadly? Up the power of the weapons. Then leave it alone. I'd be quite happy playing it.

I'm stuck playing what few games I can get these days so I just play RAW, but man, if I were back with my buddies and they still played we'd be doing this and having a great time.

2nd had a lot of random junk that had big effects but a small chance of working - this was great for a small skirmish, but made anything with over 4 squads a pain. It also had a lot of options that really weren't messy to deal with. For my ideal modifications, the only thing needed would be an overwatch counter or something.

rrchristensen
15-12-2006, 08:30
We've talked a lot about the chrome, but there are a few nitty-gritty things that newer players should know about.

For one thing, all models had a movement stat. Humans moved 4", eldar 5" and tyranids 6" (squats went 3").



Aha! THERE's the underlying reason why the Squats disappeared: they were too slow to run from the bugs. Oh if only those Hive Fleets had held off until 3rd edition, the squats would have had an equal chance of survival! Curse their terrible luck! :p

Ah, 2nd edition. I cut my teeth on that edition, but rarely brushed them. Ah to be a young teenager again, when one's main worry was the implications of randomly-scattering virus grenades. (God I wish I'd spent those years worrying about girls instead.)

rrchristensen
15-12-2006, 08:33
Can anyone tell me what were the diffrences betwean:
a) Power Axe
b) Power Mace
c) Chaisword
d) Chainaxe
and what were the rules of Mole Mortars?!

Thx...

IIRC if you download the Necromunda rulebook from the Specialist Games division of GW's website, you can get a pretty accurate picture of the differences between power weapons in 2nd ed. 40K, as many of those rules were lifted wholesale. God I loved Necromunda.

execution of all things
15-12-2006, 08:43
I'm 24 and I started playing when I was 14, so I had a few years of playing with 2nd edition rules. The only good old days that I refer to about that time is the good old days of playing with my friends in highschool. I really prefer the new rules. Plus, the good old days also involved lots of arguing over unclear rules which most times resulted in calling the GW hotline and having some poor soul listen to our debate as we shouted our points over the phone while the caller tried to mediate the phonecall. As much as people complain about the oversimplification of the rules I quite enjoy playing a game without any debate about little problems.

Smokedog
15-12-2006, 09:44
@Commissar von Toussaint:

Just read through to 2nd edition summary sheet. Although I havn't played 2nd ed in a while, I can't belive you still allowed vortex grenades!

If they are inlcused they should at least double in price!!

Other than that there wren't to many changes... I wonder if you will be interested to see my mix of 2nd and 4th ed rules I am currently finishingg off?
Thanks.

Bookwrak
15-12-2006, 09:57
What 2nd Edition had that made it so awesome was character. incredible, super-cool character. And space marines with shruiken catapults. (okay, I'm kidding about that making it awesome). However, a lot of that character came at the expense of balance, and expediency. I think that the current edition is more fun to actually play, while second edition really was most fun afterwards, when you were talking about the highlights of game over beers and could gloss over or forget the annoying or frustrating things that happened in the game.

banik
15-12-2006, 10:06
I think that 2nd Ed. wasn't geared towards younger gamers as much.

As far as what I enjoyed about it, I think my Favourite thing was the rules for the Wraithcannon.

It used to be that you'd shoot something. If you hit, then the model eitherr A) got sucked into the warp or B) got teleported 2d6" in a random direction... Not the squad, just the model. It was the most fun thing ever.

Bloodknight
15-12-2006, 10:11
a) Power Axe : could be used one handed S5 -2, two handed 6 -3)
b) Power Mace (S5 -3, did IIRC D3 damage)
c) Chaisword (fixed S4 -1, parry)
d) Chainaxe (fixed S4 -2)

ObiWayneKenobi
15-12-2006, 11:57
Don't let anyone fool you.. 2nd edition was garbage. I played it for several years, and I hated it utterly. There were a slew of rules that bogged down the game (Overwatch), an even bigger slew of random items that armies could take (about 10 different kinds of grenades, combat drugs, three kinds of forcefields, etc.) and it was like 5th edition Fantasy... you basically had a maxed-out commander that fought the battle for you, and your normal troops were just there to watch/cheer him on. Level 4 psykers ruled the day and games basically boiled down to a one-on-one duel between commanders, because whoever was left could decimate the enemy army. I did, however, like how different weapons had different stats.. a "Power Axe" was not the same as a power sword, and save modifiers were good for keeping Marine players in line.

About the only good thing in 2nd edition was the Mission Cards, which were neat because each side had its own objective to gain additional VPs.. so your mission might be Recon (get into my deployment zone), but mine is to assassinate your commander; it made the game a lot more fun and I wish they would bring those back. I also liked the old Strategy Cards, which were one-time special rules you could use at certain points.. for example get an extra free piece of wargear, or call in an orbital strike at the start of the game.. the only really bad one was the much-hated Virus Outbreak which IIRC inflicted a wound (4+ chance I think?) on anything not in power armor... it could easily decimate IG although I never saw it do so.

Quite frankly, with a few exceptions such as Mission/Strategy Cards, different stats for weapons and armor saves, I'm rather glad 2nd edition is dead and gone.

monkey child
15-12-2006, 12:41
I personally loved 2nd edition, fair enough when battle got big things started to get a bit unweildy, but for the games i liked to play, which were basically small scale skirmishes with the empasis on real tactics it was incredible. I completly agree that for third edition they should have just refined the system a bit rather than completly rewriting it. But then again if people wanted to play larger battles on a regular basis i suppose plenty of players were happy over the streamlining.

SgtKnivek182nd
15-12-2006, 14:21
i have currentlly played 2nd 3rd and 4th edition 40K. i am 24 and i started when i was about 12.
I really enjoyed the 2nd edition even though as many people have said they where alot more rules regarding weapon statistics and grenades. but i really didn`t find these hard to understand. i regurlally played 3 games a week and didn`t find they used to last forever as some people have stated. The mission cards and rules like overwatch gave an extra element to the tactics of the game, These were great. It was entirelly possible though to completelly load up characters and play herohammer:( as it has been called but i found this to be detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. So in my gaming group we never did this.
When GW produced 3rd edition i found this very dissapoiting and as such really slowed down my gaming before stopping alltogether:cries: . Having got back into the hobby this summer i have found that 4th is a much better version than 3rd a lot of the problem with 3rd have been ironed out and its a very streamlined version of the game. It is a lot easier to pick up than 2nd edition for novices. I Will say in my opinion its still not as good as 2nd for the fluff and tacticallness of the gaming.
Overall, When GW brings out the 5th edition of 40K i would like to see a cross between 2nd and 4th edition. If GW would bring back some of the things like the mission cards and the overwatch as has been previouslly mentioned. As well as making grenades usefull again, probablly not as wild as they used to be but a slight boost that would make the next edition a much better game.:)

Phyros
15-12-2006, 18:12
Plus, the good old days also involved lots of arguing over unclear rules which most times resulted in calling the GW hotline and having some poor soul listen to our debate as we shouted our points over the phone while the caller tried to mediate the phonecall.

You mean back in 3rd and now in 4th people don't call the hotline and shout out the points over and over?? :eyebrows:

I don't seem to remember any rules disputes back in 2nd, and if there were, there weren't near as many as there are nowadays.

IJW
15-12-2006, 18:42
I don't seem to remember any rules disputes back in 2nd, and if there were, there weren't near as many as there are nowadays.
If only. :rolleyes: We used to glance through each new codex and count how many rules there were that contradicted already existing rules. Some things haven't changed much, but due to the internet everyone gets to hear about all the possible problems, not just the ones you encountered personally...

The Emperor
15-12-2006, 18:52
were a slew of rules that bogged down the game (Overwatch), an even bigger slew of random items that armies could take (about 10 different kinds of grenades, combat drugs, three kinds of forcefields, etc.) and it was like 5th edition Fantasy... you basically had a maxed-out commander that fought the battle for you, and your normal troops were just there to watch/cheer him on. Level 4 psykers ruled the day and games basically boiled down to a one-on-one duel between commanders, because whoever was left could decimate the enemy army.

Must be the people you played with, because most games for me were nothing like this. I and my opponents didn't rely on our commanders to win (And we would've been slaughtered had we tried). Nor did we max out on the 50% point limit on character. For example, my standard army list was as follows (Don't remember everything, but this is the basic gist).

Captain (Power Sword, Displacer Field, Combi-Weapon)
Chief Librarian (Terminator Armour, Storm Bolter, Force Weapon)
10x Tactical Squad (Flamer, Missile Launcher)
10x Devastator Squad (Heavy Plasma Gun, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Heavy Bolter)
5x Terminator Squad (1x Assault Cannon)
5x Scout Squad (1x Missile Launcher)
Dreadnought (Multi-Melta, Power Fist, Storm Bolter)
Land Speeder (Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer)

And my Captain and Librarian sure as hell weren't fighting the battles on their own. I can't imagine what kind of game you played where it was just characters stomping around doing the damage, while the troops just stood there ineffectually doing nothing, but most of my games were won by my troops blasting away at everything in sight. My Captain and Librarian sure as hell didn't mow down the Ork hordes that I regularly faced on their own. That was the work of my Rapid Firing Space Marines. And on one of the few times I took Commander Dante, he and his bodyguard got massacred by a squad of Genestealers. In another game his sole contribution was to kill Makari, the Gretchin Standard Bearer.

And Overwatch hardly bogged down the game. How hard is it to say "Ok, these guys aren't shooting, they're going on Overwatch, instead" and then during your turn say "Ok, these guys on Overwatch are firing"? All you're doing is holding your fire for a later time. That's hardly more time consuming then firing on your own turn. As for the variety of force fields, that's all it was, variety. You couldn't use them all at once.

Anyway, while flipping through the rulebook, I found another rule from back then that I liked. Namely that encumbered troops counted as having -1 WS (-1 Combat Score, actually, but for game purposes, it was the same thing). Encumbered troops being guys carrying around heavy weapons. So a Devastator with a Lascannon, for instance, was effectively WS 3 thanks to having to fight while carrying a Lascannon. That was a nice rule, and made heavy weapon troops extra vulnerable to getting assaulted.

Phyros
15-12-2006, 19:08
We used to glance through each new codex and count how many rules there were that contradicted already existing rules.

Can you cite some examples please?

IJW
15-12-2006, 19:57
I stopped playing around the time the Necrons made their first appearance, and can't remember any specific examples. It tended to be 'immovable object v. irresistable force' stuff, especially when it came to special effects of weapons v. special saves and abilities of characters. Not as bad as 1st ed, though.

The Song of Spears
15-12-2006, 20:06
Originally Posted by IJW View Post
We used to glance through each new codex and count how many rules there were that contradicted already existing rules.

Can you cite some examples please?

Ditto, because there were no such thing as Codex's in 2nd ed as they are now. You either got you armies out of Imperialis or White Dwarf, or Waargh!! the Orks. But even they were not really codex's they were more like expanded wargear books and special squads.

Maus
15-12-2006, 20:08
Wait, I remember having 2nd ed codices.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
15-12-2006, 20:17
Wait, I remember having 2nd ed codices.
yes, of course there were codex books for 2nd ed. :p

~ Tim

IJW
15-12-2006, 20:20
So what are the 2nd ed Eldar, Ork and Tyranid codices sitting in my cupboard? ;)

VenrableOne
15-12-2006, 20:21
Here are some comments I copied down over the years about 2nd/3rd/4th. It should give you some idea as to why people think it was better.


2nd ed. had its problems, but overall it was a more interesting game to play. 3rd ed. unfortunately bores me.


"The thing is they needed a scalpel to fix 2nd Ed, they used a nuke. They need a nuke to fix 3rd Ed and they're trying to use a scalpel."


The only reason that difficult terrain checks are a D6" move are because GW thought that the average 40K player was too stupid to divide 4 by 2. I'm serious here. In basically every other game that GW makes, difficult terrain is a straight reduction in move distance. But their policy for 3rd Ed. 40K was to take out every modifier, divisor, or any other bit of math that might confuse the average shaved chimp.


In 2nd Edition what mattered were tactics and strategy.
Whatever happened to the Psyker Phase? That took a whole set of tactics unto itself. Oh, so sorry, takes too much time says our focus group of 13 year olds.
Rue the loss of a war game, my fellow 40K fans, which has been turned into nothing more than a Collectible Card Game, before you argue about armour saves and weapons.


I have always maintained that 2nd edition was broken and did need fixing. It only needed fixing though, not replacement. Whether by accident or design, GW has actually pushed the better development of 40K backwards by a lot of years by adopting this approach of wholesale replacement of rules.


Now I know every brain washed 3rd edition zombie is going to call me a heretic, but I don't care, because 2nd edition is so much better


My take on 2nd vs. 3rd is that 2nd had great core rules, which were made a bit broken by the army selection rules and characters rules, while 3rd eds army selection and character choices were rather more reasonable, but the core rules are broken.


Well, I never played Eldar, but having decided (probably) to take the game up again, (after about 11 years of not playing), I'm quite annoyed at what I've seen done to the game with the new rules... I play(ed) Orks, and they've lost tons of stuff.

I can't believe it was necessary to 'dumbify' everything to such an extent just to try and streamline the game.

It's not just the Orks though... the 40k universe was so rich and diverse.. rogue trader was a masterpiece of fiction and tactical gaming, yet now I feel like that a lot of the old dark background, flavour and freedom has just been ripped right out of the game, it's like an abbreviated version of what it once was..


Everything about the current rules disappoints me. When explaining the changes to a friend who hadn't played since second edition, I had to say "all the rules work...they don't make any sense, but they work. Real battle tactics are out the door. It's about playing within the rule system now. If you know the rules well, you can make tactics based on them. If not, you'll just be saying a lot of what? That's not even logical!"


2nd edition was possibly too complicated/flawed in some people’s opinion so a super simplified version of WH40k appeared 3rd edition. It was not too long before it was obvious to some people 3rd edition had been simplified too much. (They had to include too many special rules to help define race specific abilities.)


Now my personal thoughts. 3rd/4th has been streamlined too much to suit tournament play. This is great if you like to enter tournaments. Unfortunately this has led to a "I'm just here to crush your army" mindset among gamers. What you had with 2nd was a story that was influenced as you played. Sure it had it's flaws but it was just more fun.

Another way to look at it: 2nd is like duck confit and brown butter potatoes, it may have had some things you didn't need but the flavor was fantastic. 4th is like bread and water, sure you can live on it but its just lacking.

Yet another analogy;
2nd ed player: "Dr. Strangelove is a great movie"
3rd/4th ed player: "Its black and white so I can't watch it"

There is a very different mindset between those who played 2nd and those who haven't.

I will be adding a few quotes from this post to the above list.

IJW
15-12-2006, 20:41
I may have to make an apology. Having had another glance through the 2nd ed Eldar codex my memories of contradictory rules may be a holdover from RT. The rest of my 2nd ed stuff is a bit buried at the moment.

One thing that did occur to me, though, was fast-moving infantry - if they made a double move, did everyone shooting them get -1 to hit, as technically they had moved 10" or over. For Harlequins that could mean -1 for moving fast, -1 for the holosuit and -2 for being in hard cover at the end of the move, for a total of -4 to hit...

On the subject of fiddly rules - nearly two whole pages for the Death Spinner, and one and a half for the D-Cannon. :eek:

IJW
15-12-2006, 20:45
Yet another analogy;
2nd ed player: "Dr. Strangelove is a great movie"
3rd/4th ed player: "Its black and white so I can't watch it"
That's just the generation gap. When I was a teenager in the Eighties the grown-up AD&D players of the time had much the same attitude to us younger players.

Some good points apart from that, though.

gLOBS
15-12-2006, 20:53
I 100% agree with VenrableOne, couldn't have said it better myself.

Oh and Yup anything that moved 10"+ was -1 to hit including genestealers and 18" run for hormigaunts.

Those harlies could become toast with a tactical squad that decided to use a flamer and to chuck 9 frag grenades aimed at the harlies feet.

Well pretty much anything but terminators would suffer greatly.

HiveFleetEzekial
15-12-2006, 21:02
Ahh, the good ol' days! (well not so good, as i still had school then, which sucked!)

blinds, plasma,vortex grenades. D feilds, tyranid assaults, completely regening 'fexes..

Such fond memories of that edition. a.k.a. 'the start of both my addiction, and my self induced therapy'. :D Great medium, back then (with more stress IRL), for stress relief! Painting and playing. Even where I met the current batch of friends I hang out with.(and have, ever since.

And the stories that can be told from that edition.. from the super bega-battles, to the 'that just shouldn't have happened! so close to impossible!' little moments that win battles, or just cause good laughs.. sometimes both.

UM (me) Vs 'vet' BA, just after getting done with 'tactics' lessons from a friend (which turned the then 1 in 10, to 4 in 5 :) for win/total games). Termi capatin with the grenade launcher upgrade.. hides out in some shrubery, waiting to ambush a 3 man squad of BA termis. Problems demand his attention elsewhere just as the BA terms get withen charge distance, so he launches off some smokes at them and rushes to handle the other problems.

Smoke grenades go off, forming 3 nice sized clouds, totaly enveloping the BA terms.

BA turn, roll for the blinds, 1 shrinks, 1 grows, 3rd moves nearly covering for the 1st ones shrinkage! Now, with the movement rules, and 2nd ed smokes, the termies are forced to each move in a random direction.

3 turn's worth a story short.. all smokes end up staying the duration, growing shrinking, or moving.. keeping the termies blinded and moving randomly the whole time. End of game, ermie squad is out of coherency, earning me VP, and making them non-scoring. (win for me, thanks to those blinds! lol)



Tyranid assault. god how i both love and lament that special strategy card!!

UM (me) Vs the bugs, longways on a table. smaller DP zones. 'long ways, this wont be too hard" 'wait, he's got the infiltrators too!? nooo!" as carnies, lictors, and 'thropes apear from the side edges, on MY side of the board! And low and behold, my mission card? 'hold the line'! 'crap!!"

Battle ensues, carnie #1 never dies and gets drawn away and tied up in CC for the game. carnie #2 dies quickly and stays dead thankfully. Other big nasties do their damage, but end up going down with good fights and lucky shots. Meanwhile allll he little gribblies keep creeping and sweeping forwards, over and over and over. Bringing with them the occasional backup of the 'fresh' versions of their previously killed biger brother bugs (all of them! :\ )

A full 6 turns (1 turn past store closing) and 6 hours (1 past closing lol). all but 1 of the bugs had been fought off and killed to start anew from their edge, with only 1 stealer, holding just a claw over 'the line' (thanks for HtL needing 50% of model, over, to count!). Long, hard fought, drawn out, win for me. Only happened 'cuz we couldn't keep playinh 'to the last!".

That was one nassssty card for bugs to get back then! :D (thank god we chose longways before we draw cards! HtL wouldn't have worked so well then lol)


It was all the little moments that really made 2nd ed what it was for most of us I think. Battles as a whole, and moments withen, were allot more memorable.

Panzer MkIV
15-12-2006, 21:13
This has been a very interesting read. Makes one wonder how the Tau would have looked during the 2nd edition ;)

Also for all those players who want a cross between 2nd and 4th ed. :I've played Void for a couple of years and it looked like a nice hybrid of 2nd and 3rd. Maybe you could give it a look? Some things where even included in 4th edition like Target Priority

Phyros
15-12-2006, 21:13
If the Tyranid player rolled "Tyranid Assault" for his mission, the opposing player discarded his mission and got a new one, it was called Survive. :D

The Emperor
15-12-2006, 21:28
"The thing is they needed a scalpel to fix 2nd Ed, they used a nuke. They need a nuke to fix 3rd Ed and they're trying to use a scalpel."

Good point. Restricting Wargear the way they have in the current edition, as well as implementing something like the Force Organization Chart, would've gone a LONG way towards fixing 2nd editions problems. There're other things they could've done, but fixing it wouldn't have required throwing out practically everything that made the game what it was. A shame. Warhammer 40k would be a MUCH better game, today, had 3rd been an evolution of 2nd edition rules, rather then a practically all-new system.


If the Tyranid player rolled "Tyranid Assault" for his mission, the opposing player discard his mission and got a new one, it was called Survive.

LOL! Yeah, pretty much. Tyranid Assault was a HUGE amount of fun, though. If a Tyranid unit got blown away, it could come back on from the Tyranid players table edge the next turn. Your Hive Tyrant get wasted by a multi-melta? No problem. You get it back next turn. Though you gotta move it from the table edge, so it'll be a while before it gets back into the fight. That mission made for some nervewracking battles, though.

And on the subject of missions, that's another thing I miss. It was great having both players draw mission cards and then having to guess what the other guys mission was. He's zooming a unit of Orks led by his Warboss in a Battlewagon towards my line. Is it because he's got Dawn Raid or Take and Hold? Or maybe it's because he's got Assassinate, and he's looking to take out my Commander with the Warboss? Because of the uncertainty, you had to cover all the angles. You had to make sure your opponent was kept off the Take & Hold point, and out of your deployment zone, while keeping your commander alive, and so on. If not then you'd be in for a rude surprise at the end of the game as your opponent throws down his mission card and claims 5 fat Victory Points for having completed his mission. It was also nice having both sides having different objectives to complete. One guy has to Engage & Destroy, getting bonus VP's for destroying units, while the other guy has Take & Hold, and has to capture a specific point on the battlefield. One guy has Dawn Raid, and has to get into the enemy deployment zone, while the other guy has Witch Hunt, and has to kill the enemy psyker. It was nice having them go to battle fighting for different reasons, rather then both sides having to complete the same objective.

gLOBS
15-12-2006, 21:34
Yea not knowing what your opponents misson was amazing. You had to keep second guessing if thats your opponents true intent was all through the game while keeping yous a secret. Unless you were tyranids hehehehe- oh and don't forget the tyranid wheel of fortune for every unit before the game starts. Oh no Jones is acting strangely.

The Emperor
15-12-2006, 21:36
Made worse by the fact that Jones is one of the most common names around. DAMN those Jones'! ;)

As far as missions went, I used to try to do two or three at a time, just to keep the other guy guessing. In other words, I ALWAYS went after his Commander, and I ALWAYS tried to get a unit into his deployment zone, just to screw with him.

VERITAS/AEQUITAS
15-12-2006, 21:42
Imagine simply you are watching an awesome action-movie: you have fast vehicles that loose control and explode somewhere, you have the heros tossing 'nades onto the enemy and see them fly due the explosion in almost all directions, you see the main charackter fighting the evil powers with his mighty sword or a gun that blazes apart all foes, you see smoke, you see fire, you see lightnings shot out of the hands of some sorcerer guys and now with those pictures in your had you know that 2nd edition of warhammer 40k had rules that allowed you to create games which exactly have situations that were solved in this movie-like way....

Like shooting a Space Marine bike: You roll to hit and now roll a dice to see if driver or Bike was hit. Say, bike was: you try to penatrate the armour next --> you did! Now the funny part: There is this card called DATAFAX (one seperate for every vehicle, showing its stats), you look onto it and now you roll a dice again and get a damage chart that not says "Vehicle immobilised", NO it says something like: "The bikes frontwheel is shot off. The Biker loses control, and starts to roll and slide in a uncontrolled manner --> the driver is killed instantly while the bike will scatter 2D6 in a random direction, bury under it everything in its way, causing a S8 hit with a -2 armour save modification."

(Above damage description is just what it was like, no real one) So, just see how much cinema like action was buillt in it. Like every game was more like a action story that someone tells, not a "dry" game with minis...

Miss it so much :(

VenrableOne
15-12-2006, 21:57
That's just the generation gap.

Thats the point. Of course we should call it an edition gap. :p

I'll also add to what others have said, it would be nice if 5th took the best rules from 2nd and 3rd/4th. Or better yet had basic/tournament rules and advanced/flavorful rules.

Asq_Dak
15-12-2006, 23:07
The core rules set for 2nd ed 40K isn't too different from Warhammer Fantasy. I pretty much learned both at the same time, so nothing seemed really over complicated. If you can dear with fear, terror, etc in WFB, why not 40K? The turn sequence was pretty much the same.

The only thing that was really different was close combat, but that didn't take too long in my experience.

And all those little extra details along with movement and cover making you harder to hit certainly made models seem to be more durable in a game.

I miss 2nd ed dearly... Think I'll play it over the Christmas holiday!

Commissar von Toussaint
15-12-2006, 23:56
Imagine simply you are watching an awesome action-movie: you have fast vehicles that loose control and explode somewhere, you have the heros tossing 'nades onto the enemy and see them fly due the explosion in almost all directions...

See, that is exactly what the current edition is missing. Every game we play of 2nd ed. is a story. It has a setting, characters and then tells a story. And as the game progresses, the story unfolds.

A lot of us have been telling tales of incredible oddball stuff that could happen, but most of the time it didn't: the oddball stuff just sticks out because it was so oddball.

But even the "mundane" events were full of drama. When you lit up a tank and got a penetrating hit, you didn't know what would happen. Would the driver take a hit and send it careening out of control? Would a flash-fire set off the ammo? Would the turret get blown clean off? There was tension in every aspect of the game.

Now you have almost none of that. Everything is standardized, odds-based and basically soulless.

You don't have squads charging from cover to cover, or a lone champion hurling a haywire grenade at a Chaos Land Raider in a desperate attempt to disable it.

Can't do that any more. :(

Fear is the mind killer
16-12-2006, 00:36
Long story short. 2nd ed. was the best 2 turns you could ever have, and then you'd have to pack up and put everything away. 3rd ed. is still fun and you can actually finish a game.

However, if you had many hours (about half a day did it) you could finish a 1500 points game that you would remember for years cos something weird or highly unlikely would nearly always happen.

The Emperor
16-12-2006, 00:38
However, if you had many hours (about half a day did it) you could finish a 1500 points game that you would remember for years cos something weird or highly unlikely would nearly always happen.

Ok, I gotta ask, what were you doing that it took you half a day to play a 1500 point game? We used to play 2,000 points games, and it didn't take anywhere NEAR that long.

Karloth Valois
16-12-2006, 01:22
2nd edition had good and bad points.

Bad points were: Slow close combat, vehicle damage/penetration system, abusable lists/wargear, overwatch, characters often too being powerful/dominant.

Good bits were: AP system, being able to march/run, modifiers in general, cool wargear, variation in army lists.

2nd ed. was a much slower game but not THAT much slower than 3rd ed. once you knew the rules and things got going. The thing is, 2nd edition actually had a little bit of character as a game, it was not perfect, but it was far more interesting than the bland souless unexiting sanitised tournament obsessed ***** we play now. Sounds stupid but 2nd ed. was so obviously complex, a bit unbalanced and a bit wacky that people cared less about winning because of the way the game was.

I think i've hit the nail on the head here with my feelings regarding old/new 40k: Now things are so streamlined, tweaked and simplified, people basically only care about winning because the game system itself produces nothing fun or amusing or interesting.

Get some old WD's and read the battlereports for 2nd edition games and you'll see what I mean. Someone really needs to work on a 40k edition 2.5 (if it hasnt already been done) combining the best bits from either game.

damiengore
16-12-2006, 01:43
I just sold the entire 2nd edition rules WITH BOX (including Dark Millenium) and 4 2nd edition codex's for 20 bucks. The guy who bought it got ripped off. 2nd edition was rank and was the reason my interest in the hobby disappeared. It was so open to abuse and hero hammer, I've never been around so many heated arguements and pure anger.

So many counters, so many cards, so many rules, so many things to keep track of. It was more like a lengthy exercise in anger managment than a fun game. Every vehicle had it's own card with it's own damage chart, calculating to hit's were boring processes of modifiers, psychic powers were like a secondary game you played in each turn complete with it's own set of counters, cards and rules.

I really have absolutely nothing good to say about 2nd edition and I've been playing since 1989, it was hands down one of the worst games I've ever played (advanced squad leader is way more fun and that's game bored me to tears!) and it was only my love for the setting, character and background of 40K that sustained any interest in the hobby. The current system is way more playable and you can play a game in under 2 hours whereas a 2nd edition game would take us 6 to 8 hours and all that would be left were 2 characters in terminator armour and displacer fields popping around like idiots.

DEFF TO 2nd EDITION!!!!

Maus
16-12-2006, 01:44
Bad points were: Slow close combat, vehicle damage/penetration system, abusable lists/wargear, overwatch, characters often too being powerful/dominant.
Hmm, let's pick this apart, shall we?

Slow CC: [disclaimer: I don't remember CC so well, so I'll just imagne what I'm saying is valid even though I'm thinking about shooting] That's a good thing. I loved that all combat was worked out on a per model basis. Though I've not played since 2nd ed, this "majority save" business is worrying to me.

Vehicle damage/penetration: That part was totally awesome. The different penetration values for all the weapons were easy to keep track of since, y'know, GW gave you a reference card with them all on. It made it much more a case of "pick the right tool for the right job" when deciding which heavy weapon to fire at what big thing.

Abusable lists and characters: Okay, I'll give you that one. I don't think I ever managed to kill any of my brother's major characters because he pumped them so full of add-ons. He also used to make his units as powerful as possible without crossing whatever point threshold would give me more VPs for killing them, the git. Lists were expoitable, sure. You just needed to find a player who was more interested in haveing a fun game than in winning.

Overwatch: Why the hell is this looked on as bad? "Hmm, I don't have any targets I want to hit right now, but when that guy moves that squad'll cause me problems -- I know, I'll go onto overwatch" Actually, I guess that anyone who doesn't like the idea of overwatch ought to play some Space Hulk. That'll convert them :D

---

re: herohammer killing enjoyment of 40k: My only regular opponent was my brother, who is a powergamer and loophole-exploiter. Did this ruin my enjoyment? Hell no! I never won (well, once I did) but I pissed him off with some sneaky tactic that killed a unit he was incredibly proud of each game. It's not the winning, it's making your opponent lose his temper that counts.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
16-12-2006, 01:55
Though I've not played since 2nd ed, this "majority save" business is worrying to me.
theres no such thing as "majority save" (its a common misconception) - instead theres "Mixed Armour", which means that models actually do get to use their own Save. theres Majority Toughness (but models still get to use their own Toughness for "Instant Death", which is a bit like multiple damage attacks in 2nd ed, but less random) and Majority Weaponskill (when a unit as a whole is attacked, but not when each model makes attacks)... and Majority Init (but thats only used in one very specific circumstance: when one unit tries to persue another wholesale). oh and when a unit is partially in and partially out of cover, the Majority is used.

a lot of the "majority" rules represent attacks against/the actions of a unit as a whole (you dont shoot individual models, you shoot a unit, for example). individual models still get considered separately, but only in certain circumstances, or at certain parts of a process (eg. Mixed Armour).

hope that helps :)

~ Tim

Greatoliver
16-12-2006, 02:11
theres no such thing as "majority save"...

Good ol' Tim. :D

Ahh...I think you'll probably know what I mean... [Insert smilie that's a smile without th stoned look - perhaps a knowing smile? This'll do = :rolleyes: ]

Even though I wasn't alive when 2nd Ed. was out (before 1992?) I know what you mean. I was reading over the Necromunda rules and it's great. People have told me that it's like 2nd Ed. and it must've been fun!

Bookwrak
16-12-2006, 02:12
Overwatch: Why the hell is this looked on as bad? "Hmm, I don't have any targets I want to hit right now, but when that guy moves that squad'll cause me problems -- I know, I'll go onto overwatch" Actually, I guess that anyone who doesn't like the idea of overwatch ought to play some Space Hulk. That'll convert them :D


The problem being if you had two shooty armies, and then the other guy said, 'heck no, I don't want them getting shot. They'll just sit tight, and overwatch back," and then the first player also didn't want to move his squad and get it shot, and figured that those other squads would work best if over watching too... It wasn't that bad of a rule, but it was a mechanic with a high potential for stalemate.

ObiWayneKenobi
16-12-2006, 03:15
Having been reminded of some of the GOOD things about 2nd edition.. I retract my earlier statement. I agree totally with VenrableOne that 3rd should have been a better version of 2nd, not a totally new system that tried to streamline everything to make it a cinch to understand.

Fear is the mind killer
16-12-2006, 03:49
Ok, I gotta ask, what were you doing that it took you half a day to play a 1500 point game? We used to play 2,000 points games, and it didn't take anywhere NEAR that long.
Well, because the games were normally played at the after school club, which normally consisted of about an hour, we only really got the hang of shooting as close combat almost never happened unless we used really small armies. When playing round my house every month or so we actually got to make the most of the psychic phase, close combat phase, and could afford to try evasive tactics rather than just having the close combat army run towards the shooty army, so we only used most of these rules once a month or less.

Honestly I think that 3rd ed. is a massive improvement over 2nd ed., but it was a mistake to ditch psychology, and possibly strategy cards too (except for the orbital bombardment and virus outbreak cards, we always ditched them).

mistformsquirrel
16-12-2006, 04:19
You know DnD did a neat thing that i think could work in 40k. While the 40k rules are essentially simple, so are the basic DnD combat rules. But for those of us who prefer a bit more option/simulation they released a book ( i forget the title) that had much more involved rules for combat, casting in combat, combat maneuvers etc...

GW could release a optional Rulebook of all the rules and gear and such that were taken out of 40k (within reason, as i am sure some things just may not fit in anymore)

Unearthed Arcana by chance?

Onisuzume
16-12-2006, 07:57
Imagine simply you are watching an awesome action-movie: you have fast vehicles that loose control and explode somewhere, you have the heros tossing 'nades onto the enemy and see them fly due the explosion in almost all directions, you see the main charackter fighting the evil powers with his mighty sword or a gun that blazes apart all foes, you see smoke, you see fire, you see lightnings shot out of the hands of some sorcerer guys and now with those pictures in your had you know that 2nd edition of warhammer 40k had rules that allowed you to create games which exactly have situations that were solved in this movie-like way....
And that's how we want to remember the 2nd ed. as well. ^^

Like shooting a Space Marine bike: You roll to hit and now roll a dice to see if driver or Bike was hit. Say, bike was: you try to penatrate the armour next --> you did! Now the funny part: There is this card called DATAFAX (one seperate for every vehicle, showing its stats), you look onto it and now you roll a dice again and get a damage chart that not says "Vehicle immobilised", NO it says something like: "The bikes frontwheel is shot off. The Biker loses control, and starts to roll and slide in a uncontrolled manner --> the driver is killed instantly while the bike will scatter 2D6 in a random direction, bury under it everything in its way, causing a S8 hit with a -2 armour save modification."
Which'll make games a lot more interresting if they'd put it back.
Oh, and I still got some of those datafaxes. :p

Yet another analogy;
2nd ed player: "Dr. Strangelove is a great movie"
3rd/4th ed player: "Its black and white so I can't watch it"
I'm a 3rd/4th ed player who happens to have the 2nd ed starter set for years.
And Dr. Strangelove happens to be one of my fav movies, which I also happen to have on DVD. (Dracula 1931 version is also in my top 5)

Setrus
16-12-2006, 09:36
Wow...that's a lot of replies. :D

Maybe I should have put up a poll asking: 2nd or 4th? And seen what would happen... :)

So it was slow but had a lot of character right?

By what I've heard the little details sound quite...annoying, since they mostly won't do anything but force you to roll for something that won't affect anyone. Although the character of it all...

Maybe a merging would be cool!? :evilgrin:

IJW
16-12-2006, 10:24
Slow CC: [disclaimer: I don't remember CC so well, so I'll just imagne what I'm saying is valid even though I'm thinking about shooting] That's a good thing. I loved that all combat was worked out on a per model basis.
Yes, you don't remember CC. :( Each assault had to be reduced to a series of '1:many' sections. Within each section, you had to roll consecutively for each model, with the number of dice rolled and the bonus to the dice depending on the number of models who had already fought, while not getting confused about which '1:many' section each model was part of. And remembering that you had a sword so could force the opponent to re-roll a die.
If there was a horde army involved the assault phase alone could take more than half an hour...



Vehicle damage/penetration: That part was totally awesome.
On the whole, yes, definitely. But not when it applied to every single bike or jetbike on the table, each in different status as far as damage is concerned, and with each hit on the unit potentially rolling different dice.


Overwatch: Why the hell is this looked on as bad? "Hmm, I don't have any targets I want to hit right now, but when that guy moves that squad'll cause me problems -- I know, I'll go onto overwatch" Actually, I guess that anyone who doesn't like the idea of overwatch ought to play some Space Hulk. That'll convert them :D
My main problem with Overwatch is that it almost always led to 'analysis paralysis' - which is a good thing in Spacehulk because it was an integral part of the atmosphere, with the marine player forced to make snap decisions against the timer.
In a regular wargame like 40k it slowed down an already slow game because there were no time limits. Apart from your opponent getting more and more irritated as the player dithered about who was going into Overwatch, and then dithered again in your movement phase for each unit on Overwatch...

All that said, I think 5th ed would gain a lot of flavour from bringing back some of the feel of 2nd ed, 3rd & 4th lost too much.

Commissar von Toussaint
16-12-2006, 14:26
The problem being if you had two shooty armies, and then the other guy said, 'heck no, I don't want them getting shot. They'll just sit tight, and overwatch back," and then the first player also didn't want to move his squad and get it shot, and figured that those other squads would work best if over watching too... It wasn't that bad of a rule, but it was a mechanic with a high potential for stalemate.

I hate to be blunt, but there is no nice what to say this:

Get some *******' tactics.

The rules weren't the problem, the problem was that both players are utterly unimaginative and have zero tactical skill. Your idea of a game was to place your army on the tabletop and shoot anything that comes at you. Oh boy, that is tactically sophisticated. :rolleyes:

But guess what? Not everyone gets to play the Germans in a reenactment of the first day of the Somme. That's where tactics come into play.

In 2nd ed., you had to use them. Every army in 2nd ed. had maneuver elements, whether you are talking marines in rhinos, or imperial guard tanks.

Successful players established a base of fire and then utilized maneuver elements to achieve the mission. Unsuccessful players camped out on hiding and overwatch and got crushed.

Again, I don't know you, haven't met you or played against you, and I apologize for using somewhat strong language, but basically what this argument boils down to is that you simply can't comprehend modern fire and movement tactics so you want reality changed so it isn't so hard. Lucky for you, GW granted your wish. :(

In fact, that's what 3/4 ed. is all about for a bunch of armies, isn't it? Camp out and shoot. With no overwatch or reaction fire, attackers can mindlessly plunge forward whilst the defenders roll buckets of dice and hope they get lucky. Let's hear it for simplification! :mad:

When my group brought back 2nd, the "new" players did that at first, especially the Imperial Guard. After a couple of games they slapped their foreheads and said "Aha! So that's how it works," and our games became fluid, tactically challenging and fast-moving. In some games no one goes on overwatch at all because the situation simply doesn't warrant it. It is a tool, nothing more.

As for close combat taking a long time, again, it only did if you didn't know what you are doing.

All you have to do is pick the combat, each player rolls the dice, calls out parrys and then you do the wounds (again, as a group) and the saves. Sure, if you only happen to own two dice and thus each player rolls them one at a time, it can take awhile. But if you have a dozen per player, it zips right along.

Not only that, but in a lot of cases you don't even need to roll. When four genestealers are on a lone guardsmen, just take him off. It's common sense -something sorely lacking in the new rules.

I also don't get the repeated references to Herohammer. Characters simply aren't that powerful. I should know, I've been making out my chaos lords and they still die like dogs when swatted with lascannons. Yep, I've got the marks, the armor, the field save, etc. but S9 2d6 wounds with a -6 save still can drop him in one - especially if he's in the open.

Characters can really only administer the hurt when they are in close combat, which is embarrassingly easy to avoid. You slam the doomlord into the unit. The doomlord kills a couple of guys. The rest run away. Your doomlord is now standing in the open while every weapon ever designed turns him into a pool of goo.

I will admit that we don't use psykers (we like our sci-fi reasonably pure) so maybe that made characters worse. When I did use them back in the day, though I found they were basically heavy weapons with cards.

Speaking of cards, datafaxes are all pretty much the same, you know. Play the game a couple of times and you figure that out. We hardly even look at them any more because the results aren't that hard to remember.

Same with weapons. Everything in the game fits on the front and back of a single card. Yes, there are some specialty types, but 95 percent of your references are right there. If you eliminate the fiddly stuff (persistent weapons like plasma and vortex grenades, virus grenades, etc.) you pretty much wipe out all the problems.

What you are left with is a flexible, tactically challenging game.

Hellebore
16-12-2006, 15:09
I think 3rd edition and 4th edition both swung the pendulum too far in one direction after 2nd edition.

There are rules I miss from 2nd ed, and rules I don't.

I'm not sorry that ASM went, not because of math, but because of realism. In reality, bullets either go through armour, or they don't, there really isn't a 'sort of'.

A flak jacket lets rifle bullets through, so no armour save at all, whilst it stops pistol slugs completely. However, that's only if it actually HITS the flak.

Think of it like this:

Rifle
flak on chest: 100% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration

Pistol
flak on chest: 0% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration.

Thus, a guardsman's 5+ armour save - it doesn't cover the whole body, but if a weapon penetrates the armour, it doesn't matter WHERE it is, whilst their is a 1 in 3 chance a pistol round will hit flak.

That is why I don't mind AP. Bullets are an all or nothing affair.

Hellebore

The Emperor
16-12-2006, 15:17
My main problem with Overwatch is that it almost always led to 'analysis paralysis'

That's hardly limited to Overwatch. I've played plenty of games where people just sit there like lumps trying to analyze every possible outcome. From Warhammer Fantasy to Checkers! Overwatch was hardly the cause of that, and removing it won't keep people who're prone to analyzing every possible outcome from continuing to analyze every possible outcome.

Lord Malek The Red Knight
16-12-2006, 15:35
reading (and posting) about some of the "best bits" of 2nd ed, ive made a bit of a realisation: a lot of things have been put back in, in COD. we can blow up/knock down buildings. we have Strategy Cards - they are just called "Strategems" and arent dealt randomly. we now have more Missions to choose from, too.

shame they stuffed up the actual game rules. :(
maybe i was too quick to write it off as poorly thought out and unplayable. a few tweaks and it might be worth the effort (even if we just export some of the fun stuff, like Strategems, into normal 40K...). :)

~ Tim

Commissar von Toussaint
16-12-2006, 15:49
I'm not sorry that ASM went, not because of math, but because of realism. In reality, bullets either go through armour, or they don't, there really isn't a 'sort of'.

Don't try for a career in ballistics, okay? :p


A flak jacket lets rifle bullets through, so no armour save at all, whilst it stops pistol slugs completely. However, that's only if it actually HITS the flak.

Right, so against an S3 weapon, there is no save mod, but against stronger ones, the save is negated.

How do save mods not reflect this?


Think of it like this:

Rifle
flak on chest: 100% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration

Pistol
flak on chest: 0% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration.

Don't forget the 16.666% chance nothing will happen. ;)


Thus, a guardsman's 5+ armour save - it doesn't cover the whole body, but if a weapon penetrates the armour, it doesn't matter WHERE it is, whilst their is a 1 in 3 chance a pistol round will hit flak.

That is why I don't mind AP. Bullets are an all or nothing affair.

Hellebore

But they aren't. As you increase the velocity/penatrating power, the odds of penetration increase. Yes, there is a break point, but body armor isn't uniform and equally effective everywhere.

So a sliding scale makes sense. The chance of a combat helmet saving your life against fragmentation is small, but better than it stopping at bullet. But it can do that, the odds are simply lower.

(Speaking of realistic, flak armor was more effective against blast weapons and less effective against ballistic weapons. Now that distinction is gone.)

More to the point, cover and armor are complimentary things. If I am behind a stone wall and wearing armor, the bullets have to go through BOTH, not one of them.

Since 3rd ed., troops in cover stand up whenever small arms fire comes at them and then crouch down when the big guns fire.

This is realistic? :eyebrows:

Hellebore
16-12-2006, 16:12
No more realistic than making it harder to hit. The game will always have abstraction, it just depends on which ones are more realistic.

A cover save reflects both the degree of cover, and the resilience of cover, a 5+ cover save is provided by trees, whilst a 4+ cover save is provided by rocks, one is soft and sparse, the other is hard and dense.

Obviously there are two seperate components to a cover, depending what it is.

Trees/plants provide obscuration, but also extra 'armour' so technically provide a negative to hit AND a cover save. However, bullets will go straight through a plant, unless it is hard wood.

Rocks, if hit, will always stop bullets, so it all comes down to the chance you'll hit the person in them - which can be provided by the mechanic of a cover save (there is a 50% chance you will be hit by bullets in a rock outcrop).

Now, if you look at the way a cover save works, statistically it is very similar to a to hit modifier.

Say BS3, 50% chance to hit. a -2 HM reduces that to a 16% chance to hit.

Conversely, a 50% chance to hit followed by a 33% chance at a cover save, giving a 16% chance to cause a hit.

The difference is that you won't get an armour save as well as a cover save. This however is a game balance thing.

Now, the cover save reflects you attempting to obscure yourself in the cover, it certainly isn't representative of you just standing around waiting to be shot.

Also, you only take a cover save when it is better than your armour save - if a shot is going to ignore your armour the only chance you will survive the hit is if it is caught by the obscuring terrain.

If it won't ignore your armour, but is obscuring then I suppose if it doesn't hit the cover then it's also gone through a point not covered in armour.

The point is the rules are symplified. A negative to hit modifier is realistic at range, but statistically isn't really much different than a cover save.

The sustained fire rules in 2nd ed were also quite bizarre, you rolled once to hit, and if you miss then all your shots miss, but if you hit then they all do.

I prefer the necromunda D3 shots mechanic and rolling to hit for all of them.

Both games have their up and down side, but I don't think that ASM is necessarily a good thing.

The point is, a bullet will either go through armour or it won't - there isn't a 33% chance a bullet will go through x cm of material, it will either go all the way through or it won't. I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, a sheet of flak will stop some things, and not others, and a sheet of steel will stop some things and not others.

Hellebore

MastroBurattinaio
16-12-2006, 16:16
Great Job, i have too for Chaos and another

IJW
16-12-2006, 17:04
That's hardly limited to Overwatch. I've played plenty of games where people just sit there like lumps trying to analyze every possible outcome.
Obviously not, but in my experience Overwatch magnified it enormously. :( It's a game mechanic that induced analysis paralysis more than pretty well anything else in 2nd ed.

sigur
16-12-2006, 17:14
On the other hand, the AP system did nothing good to the game in my opinion. This all-or-nothing approach just leads to quite some weird extremes. Also, the overrepresentation of 3+ saves leads to a mythical border between AP3 and AP4.

The Emperor
16-12-2006, 17:43
Obviously not, but in my experience Overwatch magnified it enormously. :( It's a game mechanic that induced analysis paralysis more than pretty well anything else in 2nd ed.

IMO, it's just your experience, because I have never seen anyone treat Overwatch like that.

guillimansknight
16-12-2006, 18:06
Here's to make you even more sad; the black templars were a codex army back in the 2nd ed. :p

Yup, it's funny to read, even if you read it once/month.
Oh, and it had only 10 different effects.

i dont care i played them when they were just another chapter and only bought the new codex 6 days ago (love it) i would just play a SM army with the colours

Torgo
16-12-2006, 20:21
Personally, I find AP vs. ASM to be a wash. Both have the same problem, there's too much of it so most armor is useless. The only practical difference is that now power armor is great, and terminator armor isn't that great, instead of the other way around in 2nd edition.

Fear is the mind killer
16-12-2006, 20:27
That's a good point. Having so many people complain about how AP has made marine armour too good makes it easy to forget that terminator armour has nigh impossible to beat if the army had lots of it, and termies were effectively Troops choices as they were just treated like any other squad when making an army. I still remember the reputation one 'player' had who took just wolf guard in terminator armour who hung around at the back on overwatch before 'raining fire' (his cliched words) as soon as anyone advanced into assault cannon range.

Wolf Sgt Kirke
16-12-2006, 20:45
As has been said loads so far it was the little things that really made players remember a game in 2nd ed.

I do feel that armies were a whole lot different in 2nd ed - 3rd/4th all seems much of a muchness - it's not very different being shot by a tau/shooty eldar/Imp. guard army - where as in 2nd ed it would be quite hard to mistake IG for eldar - although i do think that what they took away in game detail GW have given back in the vast improvement in minis - i just wish they would hurry up with the new SW codex!

Carlos
16-12-2006, 21:52
Overwatch slowing the game down, hit modifiers being different for each member of the squad due to different views, splitting fire and taking too much time, different save modifiers due to the multitude of differing weaponry in 1 squad, vehicles being crap, D4, D8, D10, D12, D20, Sustained Fire Dice, artillery dice, eldritch storm template, vortex template, destructor template, hellfire template, blind template, gate template, heavy flamer template, warp cards, wargear cards, strategy cards, vehicle cards, psychic power cards, a movement phase that took all day die to different movement rates, a shooting phase that too all day due to modifiers for different men, a psychic phase that took all day due to the amount of templates flying around, rolling for 10 different grenades at the start of the turn to see which way they blow, rad grenades stopping advances, virus bombs destroying 100's of orks, taking half an hour to do the assaults for 1 unit, characters having 3 different unmodified saves, crap vehicles, save modifiers etc etc.

Trust me, 2nd editin wasnt as amazing as people make out.

Commissar von Toussaint
16-12-2006, 22:02
No more realistic than making it harder to hit. The game will always have abstraction, it just depends on which ones are more realistic.

Right, and realistically, cover and armor combine to provide protection. It is not an either/or situation.


Now, if you look at the way a cover save works, statistically it is very similar to a to hit modifier.

Except that that to hit modifier is combined with armor, whereas the save isn't - so they've very different, actually.


The difference is that you won't get an armour save as well as a cover save. This however is a game balance thing.

No, it's a mechanic that makes the game less tactically demanding and utterly unrealistic.

In fact, it unbalances the game, because power armor armies don't need cover so they benefit from a clearer board.


The point is the rules are symplified. A negative to hit modifier is realistic at range, but statistically isn't really much different than a cover save.

I'd argue that any simplification has been offset by new layers of special rules (traits, machine spirits, etc.). But it is also clear that the to hit modifier that you got with armor is very different than the cover save you don't get.

Speaking of game balance, the current system is antithetical to it. If you are using armor save modifiers, it is possible to produce a sliding scale that gradually degrades all armor. This makes determining the point value of the weapon much easier.

However with an all or nothing system, there is no balance, which is why GW had to come up with increasingly ludicrous was to check the use of AP 2 weapons (plasma gets hot? What army would realistically use a weapon that misfires every six shots?! :wtf: If you would, allow me to loan you a revolver for some Russian roulette).

As for terminators, they were not the dominant element people think they are. Yes, they were powerful. They were also very expensive and heavy weapons made short work of them.

Personally, the fact that you could make an army of them is a feature to me, not a bug. Isn't that consistent with the fluff? Don't terminators often operate alone on special, dangerous missions? I seem to recall several instances where detachments of terminators were used without support to accomplish critical missions.

As someone pointed out some pages ago, 2nd was a gamers' edition, it wasn't designed for tournaments. The current version has no soul, no real story, just a force tree for competitive play.

Wolf Sgt Kirke
16-12-2006, 22:22
As someone pointed out some pages ago, 2nd was a gamers' edition, it wasn't designed for tournaments. The current version has no soul, no real story, just a force tree for competitive play.

You sir, are a genius! couldn't have said it better myself

if a thousand monkeys were unleased on a thousand keyboards that is the great statement they would write.

Hellebore
16-12-2006, 22:42
Well, I would rather realism in any game, and damn the consequences :p

Of course, they don't do that, but I would love them to.

I find AP more realistic, but still abstract (ie, power armour has 100% protection against bullets up to a certain calibre, and lasweapons).

Every type of armour provides a different amount of protection depending on the type of damage being done. Flak stops pistol slugs 100% of the time, but won't stop a sword blade - so against pistols it would provide an X+ armour save, and against bladed weapons a Y+ armour save.

This makes it much more complicated, but I prefer realism. Realistically, every set of armour would have a number of values depending on the type of damage being delt, rather than the weapons themselves having a modifier.


Hellebore

Brother Othorio
16-12-2006, 22:54
The point is, a bullet will either go through armour or it won't - there isn't a 33% chance a bullet will go through x cm of material, it will either go all the way through or it won't.


a most excellent argument, but it sortof falls apart when applied to things like say.. Space Marines: the whole basis of a Space Marines 3+ save is that any non AP3 or better weapon can roll a 1 or 2 and thereby strike a weak point in the armour: a joint or an eye, which certainly makes sense.. the problem however is that a marines armour is not of uniform thickness, the extra chest plate for example is blatantly obvious ~ as far as specific numbers go Inquisitor defines a marines chest as have 30% more armour than the abdomen, 30% is quite a big margin.. surely there must exist some weapons in the 40k setting whose penetration is greater than that of the abdomen (and similarly non reenforced parts of a marines armour) but less than that of the chest (and similary reenforced parts)? however could these weapons be simulated? the obvious answer would be to simply recognise that the targets armour would have far more weak points against these weapons.. and therefor apply a modifier to the basic roll to represent the increased chance of hitting a point they can penetrate

of course it doesnt just apply to marines.. Eldar and Tau for instance also clearly have varying thicknesses to their armour

and this ladies and gentlemen is why inbetween the Drawing Board and Mass Production there lies a little stage called Field Testing ~ because Mathematicians sometimes miss salient facts out of their calculations


* those are just wierd.. my third reaction upon seeing them was "they should SO have a save of 6+ to represent how little flesh they cover, but count as 4+ for AP purposes because of the thickness"

VenrableOne
17-12-2006, 14:26
Realism; the dreaded R word. Neither side of the ASM vs. AP debate should be using this term. If we are asking for realism we just might get it. Then wait for the complaints to start.

Do we want a system that incorporates how the shape of a projectile will affect an armor save? Not to mention its thermal and/or kinetic properties. Then you’ll need to add in a rule to cover believing a weapon will work as well.

If you’re going to do that then we had better reclassify invulnerable saves, too. Let’s see; we’ll need to have dodge, field, psychic and anything else they can come up with. Do we really want to go down this path?


Now my opinion on why GW went to AP.:rolleyes:

One day the designers were sitting around talking about how the next edition should feel. As they sat there they discussed how marines didn’t have the right feel.

“Marines should fit their imagery but we’ve given every weapon a save modifier” someone said. Another chimed in with “they also use cover, that’s not very heroic.” “How do we correct this then?” was finally asked.

“We could reduce the number of weapons with modifiers and eliminate a lot of the to hit modifiers.” one bright young fellow intoned. All the designers stared at him.

“Have you not seen the corporate mandate on new rules?” one of the old timers finally asked. “Our rules must now be simplified to the point that even our own executives will be able to understand them.” he continued.

The bright young fellow sat there silently after being chided. He looked to the old timer and then quietly asked “Shall I go get some shaved chimps for our new focus group then?”

Hellebore
17-12-2006, 14:59
There is always a level of realism you must cut off at, I just believe that they cut off with AP about right.

The concept of the armour save modifier doesn't make sense to me.

If I line up 10 1cm thick steel plates and fire 10 different weapons at them, some will penetrate, and some will not.

If I line up 100 plates, and shot 10 different weapons at them 10 times, would there somehow be a chance that one would penetrate, when it never had before?

If I fire a handgun at 1000 flak vests from the same range every time, will there be a chance that the bullet will somehow go through? I doubt it very much.

The armour save modifier is supposed to reflect the likelyhood a weapon will penetrate an opponent's armour, but you can't get more likely, it either goes through or it doesn't.

The only way this changes is with distance, the closer a pistol is to a vest, the more force it does, until it is at the point it will go through the vest.

So, if I take 100 flak vests, and fire a pistol from 30cm away at each one, it will always go through.

However, this comes back to the dual nature of weapons in 40k - S and AP/ASM.

In reality, there is no Strength or AP/ASM, there is merely energy (kinetic or otherwise).

A bullet uses kinetic energy, and flak armour protects against high levels of kinetic energy. An arrow however, uses kinetic energy concentrated to a smaller, sharper point than most bullets, and so WILL penetrate flak.

In this instance the armour robs the shot of its impetus, or Strength.

So technically, armour in 40k should have STRENGTH reduction modifiers - the better your armour the more damage it absorbs, so that when it does go through it may only cause minor abrasion.

I'm not adverse to modifiers, when they are applied to the right things ;)

Hellebore

Brother Othorio
17-12-2006, 15:37
If I line up 100 plates, and shot 10 different weapons at them 10 times, would there somehow be a chance that one would penetrate, when it never had before?


so your saying that most tank designers for the past 65 or so years are total ****** for thinking that the angle a weapon strikes an armour plate actually has some effect on the chance for penetration?

Hellebore
17-12-2006, 15:43
so your saying that most tank designers for the past 65 or so years are total ****** for thinking that the angle a weapon strikes an armour plate actually has some effect on the chance for penetration?

No, the angle of the strike indicates how much kinetic energy is applied to the surface.

If said tank armour was completely flat, would the shot go through or not? If it is at an angle, it doesn't apply the maximum amount of kinetic energy and thus won't penetrate.

The angle of the armour has nothing to do with the resistance of the armour - if it is dense enough it will stop the round, if it isn't then it won't.

Hellebore

VenrableOne
17-12-2006, 15:58
There is always a level of realism you must cut off at, I just believe that they cut off with AP about right.

I never use realism to debate ASM/AP. In the 40K universe belief is as much a factor as real world physics. Take Orks as an example with their red ones go faster.

After years of watching both sides I have seen that the realism argument almost has a religious fanaticism to it. Yet both sides are correct in their interpretations. Yes, armor will either stop or fail to stop damage like AP. Yes, a projectile's shape, kinetic energy, etc will reduce the effectiveness of armor like ASMs.


The concept of the armour save modifier doesn't make sense to me.

The argument for ASMs is all about balance. They work in a graduated and consistent way. With each modifier the weapon becomes that much more effective. There are no jumps in efficiency which AP has.

Nor do you run in to strange situations. Take these two weapons; S4/AP3 and S6/AP4 (all other factors are the same for these). The first one is deadlier to a marine than the second yet it is reversed for a guardsman. No consistency what so ever.

How can you balance a system like that? You can't and thats why people ask for ASMs back. They work in a consistent fashion and thus are able to be balanced.


I'm not adverse to modifiers, when they are applied to the right things ;)

I wouldn't be against AP if it was able to be balanced. :)

Hellebore
17-12-2006, 16:02
Perhaps if they just had a damage roll for weapons it would solve the problem?

Incorporating strength/AP into a single number.

Let's face it, if a nekkid human was shot in the chest, it would automatically wound, the only way survival is even possible is accuracy or lack thereof.

Hellebore

Commissar von Toussaint
17-12-2006, 19:47
The argument for ASMs is all about balance. They work in a graduated and consistent way. With each modifier the weapon becomes that much more effective. There are no jumps in efficiency which AP has.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The AP system is inherently unbalanced, and plays havoc with the game. Plasma, for instance is the worst offender in this regard. GW could make it rare, or raise its point cost, but instead they put oddball tradeoffs, and people still use it.

Where realism comes into play is whether the game:

1. Is consistent with its own fluff, and
2. Is consistent with what we know of warfare and tactics.

In both cases, 2nd was the superior edition.

It was extremely consistent with the fluff. Indeed some parts were almost too consistent, which is why there were so many fiddly rules. The simple act of taking these rules out provides the needed streamlining whilst keeping the proper feel.

3/4 ed. is also inconsistent with what we know of tactics. The AP/Cover Save debate amply proves this. Marines in 2nd ed. were extremely tough. The 3+ save, even with modifiers, meant that they shrugged off a lot of damage that dropped other armies outright. Their rapid fire ability and shaken rule gave them an even bigger edge.

Finally, they were loaded with weapon options - pistols and grenades that made them uniquely suited to fight in a variety of situations. They truly were the ultimate warriors.

Step back and what do you have? Yes, they are able to shrug off small-arms fire, but cover is only important when the plasma shows up, at which point the marines run around like little girls looking for rocks to hide behind. It's stupid.

A few posts ago I linked to some battle reports. I hope to post some more. As I said, almost every game has memorable moments. Some involve silly stuff, but a lot are simply cool battlefield situations.

In one battle over the summer we had a platoon of Imperial Guardsmen hunkered down in a ruined court house under a massive ork assault. Visually it was awesome: the guardsmen had a solid perimeter of supporting fire on multiple floors. Those on the upper floor were throwing grenades at the attackers.

The main assault punched right through a gap in the wall and the burnas cleared out the first line of defense until the command squad opened up (on overwatch) dropped the attempt at exploitation.

It was tense and it was realistic.

You simply can't have that kind of situation in 3/4th edition. Once the orks got within 12 inches they'd charge and instead of a close-range firefight we'd have a giant hairball melee scrum. Yawn.

In a another battle I was pouring fire into a building as the tyranids were advancing (again, against Imperial Guard). A lictor was lurking in the ruins, just out of LOS and the troops simply couldn't detect it on their scanners.

Faced with inbound termagants, I decided to open up with the bulk of the platoon but put one heavy bolter team on overwatch.

The lictor then charged and was mowed down by that team. It was close (the heavy bolter rolled exactly the right number of wounds) but the tension was awesome. Both players had decisions to make that they simply would have in 3/4th.

I guess that's what I keep coming back to: options. You got more options back then. No, I'm not talking about wargear or characters or goofy stuff. Arguably you have a lot more stuff to choose from now that they've created 31 flavors of marine and added Tau and more Necrons and Dark Eldar and such.

No I'm talking about tactical options. Squads could simply do a lot more things. Now they do much less.

GW and its fans call this "streamlining" but it really dumbing down. The games go faster because you simply can't do as much. I guess for people with short attention spans who fear making too many decisions this is great.

My group, however, enjoys intellectually challenging games that take a lot of thought. That's why we still play 2nd.

The Emperor
17-12-2006, 21:18
Great post, Commissar. I especially agree with this bit.


No I'm talking about tactical options. Squads could simply do a lot more things. Now they do much less.

Sadly, all my friends who I played 2nd edition with have gone and moved to other parts of the country. Otherwise I'd see about getting a 2nd edition game together sometime. After reading this thread, I really want to play a couple games of 2nd edition, again. Oh well. :(

Commissar von Toussaint
18-12-2006, 02:09
Sadly, all my friends who I played 2nd edition with have gone and moved to other parts of the country. Otherwise I'd see about getting a 2nd edition game together sometime. After reading this thread, I really want to play a couple games of 2nd edition, again. Oh well. :(

It is possible to recruit new people. My nephew has never played 3/4th. He's read the rules and pronounced them "stupid" after playing 2nd. Similarly, another person in my group thought 2nd was lousy becuase, well, it wasn't current. Then he played a game, saw how cool the old orks were and was immediately hooked.

In a lot of ways, it's easier to introduce non-gamers to 2nd because they haven't been brainwashed to think that that the game stinks.

BrainFireBob
18-12-2006, 03:03
I never use realism to debate ASM/AP. In the 40K universe belief is as much a factor as real world physics. Take Orks as an example with their red ones go faster.

After years of watching both sides I have seen that the realism argument almost has a religious fanaticism to it. Yet both sides are correct in their interpretations. Yes, armor will either stop or fail to stop damage like AP. Yes, a projectile's shape, kinetic energy, etc will reduce the effectiveness of armor like ASMs.



The argument for ASMs is all about balance. They work in a graduated and consistent way. With each modifier the weapon becomes that much more effective. There are no jumps in efficiency which AP has.

Nor do you run in to strange situations. Take these two weapons; S4/AP3 and S6/AP4 (all other factors are the same for these). The first one is deadlier to a marine than the second yet it is reversed for a guardsman. No consistency what so ever.

How can you balance a system like that? You can't and thats why people ask for ASMs back. They work in a consistent fashion and thus are able to be balanced.



I wouldn't be against AP if it was able to be balanced. :)

Except that AP is more indicative of armor types. A wargame becomes too abstract if weapons are completely consistent. Marines and guard have different physiogomy, as well as different armors- flak vests versus complicated reactive recoil-absorbing layers of hard and soft surfaces.

I like that.

Torgo
18-12-2006, 04:31
Where realism comes into play is whether the game:

1. Is consistent with its own fluff, and
2. Is consistent with what we know of warfare and tactics.

In both cases, 2nd was the superior edition.

It was extremely consistent with the fluff.
How are the current editions untrue to the fluff?
Marines are a tough, hard hitting strike force.
IG are numerous and deadly at range.
Eldar are fast, deadly and fragile.
Necrons are relentless.
Tau are deadly at range and avoid close combat.
Orks fit their current fluff, although I prefer the older background.
Tyranids don't fit very well, with the current emphasis on large creatures over small ones, but I could certainly find fluff inconsistency with 2nd as well.



3/4 ed. is also inconsistent with what we know of tactics. The AP/Cover Save debate amply proves this. Marines in 2nd ed. were extremely tough. The 3+ save, even with modifiers, meant that they shrugged off a lot of damage that dropped other armies outright.

I wouldn't say that 2nd edition marines were that tough. Sure, they were easier to bolter to death than guard or orks, but break out the heavy bolters and autocannons and you're looking at 5+ and 6+ saves. I wouldn't call that shrugging off a lot of damage.
It's been awhile, but weren't 2nd edition marines about 30 points each? While I remember orks costing in the 11-12 point range. Costing nearly 3x as much, while only dying 1/3 less doesn't suggest a durable army to me.



Step back and what do you have? Yes, they are able to shrug off small-arms fire, but cover is only important when the plasma shows up, at which point the marines run around like little girls looking for rocks to hide behind. It's stupid.


And fusion/melta, and krak missiles and rail rifles and reaper launchers, etc.
Seeking cover is only common sense against most armies.



No I'm talking about tactical options. Squads could simply do a lot more things. Now they do much less.

Yes, they had more options. Some of them were even useful, and I wouldn't mind seeing return, but a lot of it was badly implemented. Sure, it would be nice to have smoke grenades to provide cover, but scattering a bunch of templates every turn was a pain.



GW and its fans call this "streamlining" but it really dumbing down. The games go faster because you simply can't do as much. I guess for people with short attention spans who fear making too many decisions this is great.

My group, however, enjoys intellectually challenging games that take a lot of thought. That's why we still play 2nd.

See, this is why I keep getting sucked into these 2nd vs. 3/4th threads. Has it ever occured to you that some of us prefer a streamlined game over the mess that was 2nd edition? I haven't called you an idiot for preferring 2nd. I disagree with a lot of what people say about both systems, but I agree with some of it too. If you don't like the current game, fine. Could you at least refrain from being rude and insulting to the people who do?

Morgrad
18-12-2006, 05:40
I'm more interested in the first 5 pages of this thread, as opposed to the modifier vs. AP aspect, so I'll comment on what I care about.

My buddies and I never piled a bunch of points into an uber-character and had him run the board, and I'm shocked that people banned vortex grenades entirely. Vortex grenades were the great equilizer - big, nasty beasty of any shape, size, or type? BWANG - welcome to the warp - get off the table.

Sure, there were a bunch of things in 2nd edition that were too cumbersome - but the games were more fun and significantly more tactically interesting. 4th edition is a beer-and-pretzels game, whereas 2nd edition was truly a mentally-cinematic adventure.

VenrableOne
18-12-2006, 15:00
Perhaps if they just had a damage roll for weapons it would solve the problem?

Incorporating strength/AP into a single number.

Let's face it, if a nekkid human was shot in the chest, it would automatically wound, the only way survival is even possible is accuracy or lack thereof.

I'm all for anything that brings balance to the force....I mean game. I'd like to see how you'd do this.

Commissar von Toussaint I couldn't have said it better.


A wargame becomes too abstract if weapons are completely consistent.

A wargame, any game for that matter, becomes balanced when it has consistent rules. AP is far too abstract of a rule to work.


Yes, they had more options. Some of them were even useful, and I wouldn't mind seeing return, but a lot of it was badly implemented. Sure, it would be nice to have smoke grenades to provide cover, but scattering a bunch of templates every turn was a pain.

This is one of the things people miss. All the options that were removed. I'll agree scattering grenades was a pain but did they have to remove them completely.


Torgo: But master, you have six wives. Why can't I have one for myself?
The Master: You are not one of us. Therefore you can not have one of them.

No wives for you!:D

The Emperor
18-12-2006, 15:24
Yes, they had more options. Some of them were even useful, and I wouldn't mind seeing return, but a lot of it was badly implemented. Sure, it would be nice to have smoke grenades to provide cover, but scattering a bunch of templates every turn was a pain.

And it would've been easy enough to fix things like that without taking a hacksaw to the whole thing. For example, throwing Smoke Grenades could've meant the unit counted as being in Hard Cover, or Hidden, or any number of other things. Removing persistent effects would've been an easy fix, and didn't require throwing out things like movement rates, the ability of heavy weapons to target different units, and so on.

Brother Othorio
18-12-2006, 17:08
No, the angle of the strike indicates how much kinetic energy is applied to the surface.

If said tank armour was completely flat, would the shot go through or not? If it is at an angle, it doesn't apply the maximum amount of kinetic energy and thus won't penetrate.

The angle of the armour has nothing to do with the resistance of the armour - if it is dense enough it will stop the round, if it isn't then it won't.


:wtf: so what your saying is that the angle that the shot hits the armour affects the chances of the armour being penetrated? doesnt that totally contradict your opinion that a particular weapon will always penetrate the same thickness of armour no matter what?

Torgo
18-12-2006, 18:55
This is one of the things people miss. All the options that were removed. I'll agree scattering grenades was a pain but did they have to remove them completely.


There are things I'd like to see return too, although not in 2nd edition form. I certainly wouldn't say that 4th edition is perfect, far from it. I just like the way 4th plays better. Grenades are still integral to the game, they're just more abstract now, and I prefer that.



No wives for you!:D

:(
Aw...
Can't I have at least one?

gorgon
18-12-2006, 20:32
I hate to be blunt, but there is no nice what to say this:

Get some *******' tactics.

The rules weren't the problem, the problem was that both players are utterly unimaginative and have zero tactical skill. Your idea of a game was to place your army on the tabletop and shoot anything that comes at you. Oh boy, that is tactically sophisticated. :rolleyes:

Hmm.

I played 2nd ed. pretty heavily, including both friendly games and the US GT scene. And I think you're pretty far out of line calling someone tactically challenged because they didn't like the gameplay in 2nd ed. That's a stupid throwaway comment, whether you're coming from the pro- or anti-2nd ed. camp. Both editions have their tactical challenges.

In my experience, 2nd edition was a much more static game. You can talk about maneuver all you want, but in reality most games tended have a lot of bunkering with some small mobile elements. Most of the problem was that the guns were just too good. When nearly everything in the game had an armor save modifier, armor is dramatically devalued. And if you can't make saves and transports are death traps, screening, cover and hiding were the only viable options. Throw in overwatch and things tended to grind down.
Characters were strong, but there were ways of dealing with them as easy as throwing blind grenades at 'em (and then watching them stumble out of the blind cloud randomly).

Additionally, 2nd ed. codicies were wildly unbalanced to a degree that current players can't imagine...compare Eldar or SWs to the UM codex, for instance. The universal wargear deck, while a nice idea, just led to abuses when X card was given to X unit. And don't get me started on all the FAQs, errata, etc.

None of that means I didn't have fun with 2nd edition, nor is a more static game necessarily "bad" in of itself. Ultimately, it's all about different strokes for different folks. IMO, the game needed some streamlining and improvement in its handling of wargear, transports, damage tables, armor saves and mission objectives. And not coincidentally, those areas were addressed significantly in 3rd/4th editions.

If you don't like their answers to those problems, that's 100% your right. But IMO they at least addressed the right problems, and 4th edition is a solid game with its own tactical challenges. And by the way, you're underrating the importance of maneuver in the current game.

I don't understand the people who played 2nd ed. throughout and now claim it's garbage. Clearly it must have had some appeal at the time. But I can't understand the 2nd ed. zealots either, as 4th ed. has no more flaws than 2nd, and probably fewer. They're just different games.

gorgon
18-12-2006, 20:43
I wouldn't say that 2nd edition marines were that tough. Sure, they were easier to bolter to death than guard or orks, but break out the heavy bolters and autocannons and you're looking at 5+ and 6+ saves. I wouldn't call that shrugging off a lot of damage.
It's been awhile, but weren't 2nd edition marines about 30 points each? While I remember orks costing in the 11-12 point range. Costing nearly 3x as much, while only dying 1/3 less doesn't suggest a durable army to me.

Terminators were very tough, basic tactical marines stunk. When you combine plentiful armor save modifiers with a lack of screening troops and deathtrap transports, you get a lot of dead marines. Assault squads could at least move faster and hug cover, and Devs were usually screened. But the good ol' basic tactical marine tended to take a beating. There was absolutely no comparison between a tactical marine and a guardian with shuricat in terms of efficiency.

The Emperor
18-12-2006, 20:55
In my experience, 2nd edition was a much more static game.

I'm gonna have to disagree with that. Maybe that was just your area, but the 2nd edition games I played were rarely like that.


basic tactical marines stunk

And I'm gonna disagree, again. I got a lot of mileage out of my Tactical Marines. I certainly didn't end up with "a lot of dead marines" on a regular basis. And I used a Tactical Squad in every single game, in addition to my Devastator Squad (When playing Blood Angels, anyway. When playing Space Wolves I instead used Grey Hunters).


Grenades are still integral to the game, they're just more abstract now, and I prefer that.

Personally, I'd prefer grenades which inflict damage on the enemy. As for streamlined rules? Check out the Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack in the new Codex: Eldar. Instead of rolling to hit and working out a blast marker for each individual Swooping Hawk, they instead have the unit unleash an automatic hit on the enemy with a single Large Blast. That'd be nice, IMO, if more grenades worked similarly (Although Swooping Hawks drop them from the skies, and can still shoot. I imagine that for any other unit, throwing grenades would be in place of shooting, treated as a normal ranged attack).

VenrableOne
18-12-2006, 21:23
There are things I'd like to see return too, although not in 2nd edition form. I certainly wouldn't say that 4th edition is perfect, far from it. I just like the way 4th plays better. Grenades are still integral to the game, they're just more abstract now, and I prefer that.

These are the things people really miss about second. Those extra little things. As others have mentioned, they could be represented by current rules.

It just seems that the current rules are built around how fast a game can be played. In other words how many games can you get in for a tournament. This is great if you like that style of play.

What a lot of 2nd ed gamers would like is to add back some of the extra details. If they were made as optional, not allowed in tournaments, advanced rules. We would be happy (after some of the other problems are fixed, too).

The things that we miss wouldn't bother the tournament scene and we vets could get back our extras. Throwing grenades, ramming other vehicles, etc.


:(
Aw...
Can't I have at least one?

Lets see what the master would say about that. (http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/movies6/manos1.mpg)

Spell_of_Destruction
18-12-2006, 21:25
Commisar: Great posts on this thread. I pretty much agree with everything you have said. The core game of 2nd ed was fantastic it just needed a little restraint on the part of the player.

Funnily enough exactly the same thing applied to WHFB 5th ed. The difference is that unlike 40k the core game for 6th/7th remained much the same and it now has an excellent system.


Terminators were very tough, basic tactical marines stunk. When you combine plentiful armor save modifiers with a lack of screening troops and deathtrap transports, you get a lot of dead marines.

Marines most definitely did NOT stink. They merely couldn't ignore basic arms fire as they do now.

Everything generally died much faster and marines were tougher than the majority of other armies there just wasn't the imbalance that there is now;

In 2nd ed a Howling Banshee cost 27pts and a basic marine 25pts.

A Heavy Bolter in 2nd ed would fire on average the same number of shots as it does now. It would wound the banshee on 2s and the marine on 3s. The banshees would get a 6+ save, the marines a 5+. Given the respective points costs that seems fair. Unlike now when the banshees simply die on 2s and the marines ignore 2/3 of all heavy bolter fire.

Midknightwraith
18-12-2006, 21:50
And I'm gonna disagree, again. I got a lot of mileage out of my Tactical Marines. I certainly didn't end up with "a lot of dead marines" on a regular basis. And I used a Tactical Squad in every single game, in addition to my Devastator Squad (When playing Blood Angels, anyway. When playing Space Wolves I instead used Grey Hunters).

This is true when not playing against Terminators. Having played many battles under 2nd Edition, I can tell you the 60pt terminator, was way, way better than the 30pt Basic Marine in 2nd Edition. Especially if you didn't have terminators yourself. 1 single squad of chaos terminators leveled my entire UltraMarines army single handedly, never mind all the other crap running around. Grumble, Grumble stupid Assault Cannons....

I liked the flavor of 2nd Edition, but not many of the mechanics. I really like the mechanics of 3rd/4th, but the character is gone. Though I don't miss Pulsa Rockits, Vortex Grenades, or being on fire. I do miss Shokk Attack Guns, Overwatch, hell I miss D-Cannons that had a 60" range when marines moved 4" / turn.

I enjoyed reading all the posts about hybrids, alternatives and modified rules. Problem is 40k goes on because people can depend on a common set of rules. If I like to use xyz hybrid, that is all well and good, but it does me zilch when I head up to the local GS to get a game in because those alternates are not used.

GW needs to expand the unit lists back out, and add back in some of the little things to make things more like 2nd, but a return to 2d6 Terminator Armor will leave me unhinged.

sigur
18-12-2006, 22:09
We also won't see any 2d6 rolls any time in the near future. It's clear that in current 40k, no dice roll more "complicated" than one d6 for one action.

When talking about hybrids, people are not thinking of some kind of revolution but kind of going back to the roots of this hobby: Using their own creativity/rules/models/things in general to have a pleasant, satisfying experience with their friends which is a good thing and what wargaming basically is all about. That's why I'm not a fan of the gleichschaltung (I didn't know that this word exists this way in english too :) ) and focusing on the tournament scene GW currently is enforcing with their main systems (while treating the specialist games quite much like step children).

Especially with the upcoming Orks codex, we'll see some units making a comeback I hope, but this doesn't help the flaws of the system itself at all which is pretty much the reversed situation we had in 2nd edition (as I see it): A very well-thought and worked out rule system backed up by beautiful but not-that-well-thought-out army lists and units (along with force organisation). Now we have good army lists with a good mix of flexibility and balance but based on a rules system that has quite many problems and a certain dullness and lack of soul/character.

Basically, this has something to do with GW not making money by selling rulebooks but by selling miniatures of course. The rules need to be as simple as possible with the codices modifying/beinding the rules as much as possible so people will go "ooh" and "aah" because of the new possibilities different armies offer over other armies. 2nd edition gave all players similar options with fewer army-specific special rules which possibly guaranteed a more tactical game with more emphasis on ingame happenings rather than army setups.

Commissar von Toussaint
18-12-2006, 23:44
I played 2nd ed. pretty heavily, including both friendly games and the US GT scene. And I think you're pretty far out of line calling someone tactically challenged because they didn't like the gameplay in 2nd ed. That's a stupid throwaway comment, whether you're coming from the pro- or anti-2nd ed. camp. Both editions have their tactical challenges.

The comment was quite accurate and I stand by it.

I was not saying that people who did not like 2nd were stupid, I was replying to people who felt that the concept of overwatch was simply too tactically challenging.

That is another way of saying "dumb this game down so I can win it." I have no sympathy for that.

Look, if someone buys a game on the D-Day landings but then whines that the Allies have it too hard and instead adds special rules giving them hovercraft and attack helicopters, I'm not going to laud them for their tactical brilliance.

Many 40k players do just that, though: they claim to be great commanders and then blame the rules for not allowing their genius to achieve its true greatness. I don't buy it, that's all.


In my experience, 2nd edition was a much more static game. You can talk about maneuver all you want, but in reality most games tended have a lot of bunkering with some small mobile elements.

Two words: Fast speed.

Let me give you four more: firing on the move.

If any game is static and involves bunkering, it is what we have now. How many units can move and still shoot at full effect? Basically if you want to shoot, you stand still. That's about as static as you can get.

The movement aspect comes from the emphasis on assault, which turns games into a scrum.

As I've said before, there were some things that needed fixing. Like transports. If a transport is destroyed, let the passengers make a basic unmodified armor save to exit safely.

There. "Death trap" problem solved.


I don't understand the people who played 2nd ed. throughout and now claim it's garbage. Clearly it must have had some appeal at the time.

Indeed, it was the game that built GW into a gaming colossus. GW really didn't take off until 2nd came out.


But I can't understand the 2nd ed. zealots either, as 4th ed. has no more flaws than 2nd, and probably fewer. They're just different games.

They are different games, and we don't like what the one game did to the other.

We liked the game we had, pure and simple. What makes it worse is that we can see how with a little work, GW could have made it even better. It drives us nuts. That's where the anger comes in.

Just about all of us can see a "40k Advanced" in our minds eyes that contains all of these reforms and more. An elegant, updated system that does it right. Instead, we get 4th and yet more space marine rules.

The Emperor
19-12-2006, 00:32
This is true when not playing against Terminators. Having played many battles under 2nd Edition, I can tell you the 60pt terminator, was way, way better than the 30pt Basic Marine in 2nd Edition.

For over twice the points cost he damn well better be! 315 points for a 5-man squad is nothing to sneeze at.


Especially if you didn't have terminators yourself. 1 single squad of chaos terminators leveled my entire UltraMarines army single handedly, never mind all the other crap running around. Grumble, Grumble stupid Assault Cannons....

Sounds more like horrendous bad luck to me, because I've played many games with Terminators before and I've never seen a single squad inflict that kind of damage (Pretty much every game I played I took a Terminator Squad, and I regularly played a Chaos opponent who also had a Terminator Squad).

The closest example I can think of was one game I played against a Chaos army (different Chaos player then the above) in which I got mashed big time. But in that case, nearly every single model that guy had in his army was a Terminator. I had a Terminator Squad, too, by the way, and they were no help. I can honestly say, though, that given another chance, I could've done him in. And knowing what I was facing, I would've left the Terminators behind. Terminators Vs. Terminators does not make for a good fight. What good are Storm Bolters against Terminator Armour? Likewise, Assault Cannons aren't that great, either, as Terminators still get a 6+ save on 2d6 against them. No, if you're going against an army of Terminators, then taking Terminators yourself is a colossal waste. What you need are Multi-Meltas (My absolute favorite heavy weapon from 2nd edition. I always took them, even though I didn't have a Multi-Melta model. I just proxied my Missile Launchers as Multi-Meltas), Lascannons, and so on. A Devastator Squad with a couple Lascannons and Multi-Meltas would chew right through a Terminator Squad. Ditto a Tactical Squad with a Multi-Melta and Meltagun.

And of course, there's just plain old volume of fire. Shoot a Terminator enough times, he's bound to fail a save. And given how expensive they are, at 63 points a pop minimum, it's a blow to lose even one. That was my biggest worry with Orks. That they'd get within Short Range and get the +2 To Hit bonus from their Bolt Pistols and just pepper my Terminators with shots, and make me roll a bucketload of saves, some of which I was bound to fail (At least that's a dignified way to go. I've had Terminators get blown away by Gretchin. GRAH!).

An all-Terminator army isn't so bad, if you know it's coming and you're properly prepared for it. Of course, if the guy consistenly rolls 3's on the Sustained Fire dice, and never rolls a single Jam, then you're screwed no matter what. But then again, the guy's just as likely to roll three Jams on the Sustained Fire dice and blow up his Assault Cannon before he even gets to kill anyone with it.


GW needs to expand the unit lists back out, and add back in some of the little things to make things more like 2nd, but a return to 2d6 Terminator Armor will leave me unhinged.

Like I said, I think that was just horrendously bad luck on your part, because single Terminator Squads, as a matter of course, didn't chew through whole armies. It took an entire army of Terminators (not to mention the other crazy crap that Chaos player had) to do to me what a single squad did to you. And I can't imagine my standard Blood Angels army was much more powerful then your Ultramarines army.


Two words: Fast speed.

Let me give you four more: firing on the move.

Yeah. You already got a -1 penalty from Overwatch when shooting at someone emerging from cover, moving into cover, or charging you. Add in the penalties for the target moving more then 10"... Heh, I loved my Land Speeder. :D

Hellebore
19-12-2006, 04:54
:wtf: so what your saying is that the angle that the shot hits the armour affects the chances of the armour being penetrated? doesnt that totally contradict your opinion that a particular weapon will always penetrate the same thickness of armour no matter what?

Nope.

The density of the armour is completely independent of angle of strike.

The rule is called an ARMOUR SAVE modifier, not a angular strike modifier. It is there to represent somehow that a shot hiting armour will go through 'more easily', which of course it won't.

The angled armour argument only works with weapons that WOULD actually penetrate the armour in the first place, angled plates are pointless against calibres incapable of penetrating.

A shot that WILL penetrate however, effectively works out as AP1, but you could have a special rule that reduces that called 'deflective armour' or something, which would reduce it by D3 or something.

My point has always been (as have my examples) that a bullet will either go through, or not against certain thickness of armour. I was only talking about armour density.

If they changed the names to 'deflection save' and 'anti-deflection modifier' or something I wouldn't have a problem.

As I said in another post, I don't mind modifiers if they are applied to the right things, and as I can only go on what they've CALLED them as an indication of what they represent, then I don't think it would work.

Change the explanation to fit the physics and i have no problem, but that isn't what an ARMOUR SAVE modifier does.

Hellebore

Smokedog
19-12-2006, 09:56
All this discussion on 2nd edition reminds me that there are quite a lot of people out there that still like it, but i think GW´s not going back there again. I am finishing off my rulesset that is between 2nd ed and 4th ed, lets see what people make of that. Only problem is posting a set of rules for 40k, that could replace the current rules, might not go down too well with GW. Even though it is fan work, and not going to make any money. Anyone know where I stand on this?

sigur
19-12-2006, 10:25
Basically, you can do with the rules whatever you want. I guess GW would treat it like mods for computer games; they do no harm to the game or the turn-over (as mentioned before, GW can't make any money selling rulebooks. They make money selling miniatures and everything is okay with them. It's the rules people complain about) and people still will buy the minis, even if the impossible (and I'm not talking about the weird, possible impossible here, i mean impossible) happens and it should become similarly successful as core 40k 4th edition, I don't think that this would hurt GW really. Worst thing that could happen is GW wanting to buy the system (or stealing it from you) like they did with 40k in 40minutes. (that one originally was fan-made, right?)

gorgon
19-12-2006, 14:08
Two words: Fast speed.

Let me give you four more: firing on the move.

If any game is static and involves bunkering, it is what we have now. How many units can move and still shoot at full effect? Basically if you want to shoot, you stand still. That's about as static as you can get.

The movement aspect comes from the emphasis on assault, which turns games into a scrum.

I think some of your comments are aimed more at 3rd ed than 4th. Fourth edition placed more emphasis on mobility and mobile firepower, which is why drop pods, mechanized lists, etc. are all on the upswing. Even the most successful Tyranid build right now consists of moving, shooty MCs.

Fast speeds were fine, but they didn't really create a game of motion. The counter to fast moving vehicles tended to be bunkered infantry on overwatch, because vehicles were so fast and scary. And sure, you had armies that fired on the move, but I dunno that it really meant a fluid game. Most strong Eldar builds I saw consisted of a few mobile elements (Exarch, Spiders, jetbikes, etc.) and a big, slow-moving gunline of Guardians with shuricats. The changes to rapid fire weapons in 4th ed have brought more moving and shooting back into the game.


We liked the game we had, pure and simple. What makes it worse is that we can see how with a little work, GW could have made it even better. It drives us nuts. That's where the anger comes in.

It's been eight years since 3rd ed was released. That's more than enough time to move on, and that's why I don't understand the venom.

gorgon
19-12-2006, 14:33
And I'm gonna disagree, again. I got a lot of mileage out of my Tactical Marines. I certainly didn't end up with "a lot of dead marines" on a regular basis. And I used a Tactical Squad in every single game, in addition to my Devastator Squad (When playing Blood Angels, anyway. When playing Space Wolves I instead used Grey Hunters).

Tactical marines (talking about the UM codex, now) were probably the most overpointed core unit in the game, AND they had the flaw of inflexible squad sizes. There's just no comparison. Guardians with shuricats were far deadlier than tac marines on a point for point basis, and they could be fielded in many small units under 100 pts. That meant zero VPs if one Guardian was left standing. Guardians were so much more efficient, it's disgusting.

If you played primarily friendly, fluffy games, power to you. But some people are always going to play a game to win, and 2nd ed had some gross imbalances in its army lists.

I will say this. If you wanted to play SMs and win, there was always SWs.


Marines most definitely did NOT stink. They merely couldn't ignore basic arms fire as they do now.

Everything generally died much faster and marines were tougher than the majority of other armies there just wasn't the imbalance that there is now;

In 2nd ed a Howling Banshee cost 27pts and a basic marine 25pts.

And the Banshee was much less likely to face small arms fire because it could be advanced behind a screen of cheap Guardians. SMs had no such options...they just took the firepower in the face. That's one reason Terminators were so popular (other than the obvious -- assault cannons and drastically enhanced durability from power armored SMs).

The Emperor
19-12-2006, 16:39
Tactical marines (talking about the UM codex, now) were probably the most overpointed core unit in the game, AND they had the flaw of inflexible squad sizes.

I NEVER considered that a flaw.


There's just no comparison. Guardians with shuricats were far deadlier than tac marines on a point for point basis, and they could be fielded in many small units under 100 pts. That meant zero VPs if one Guardian was left standing. Guardians were so much more efficient, it's disgusting.

Yet they got mangled on a regular basis. The Shuriken Catapult was nice, but Guardians still had a BS 3. Shooting at a Space Marine in Hard Cover, they had to roll 6's to hit, 4's to wound, and I had to roll 5's to save (And that's assuming their Shuriken Catapult didn't Jam). And I rarely got caught out in the open, so they always got stiffed with shooting penalties. Conversely, if they were in Hard Cover, I needed 5's to hit, and if I didn't move, I could Rapid Fire, shooting twice (With no chance to Jam). I wounded on 3's and they had to roll 6's to save. And that's discounting the squad Flamer, which could engulf most of the squad in one blast. To sum up, they got their asses shot off every time. :D


If you played primarily friendly, fluffy games, power to you. But some people are always going to play a game to win, and 2nd ed had some gross imbalances in its army lists.

LOL! The people I played with were the biggest cheese mongers in the world! The Eldar player I played against, for instance, tried convincing me that Exarchs could take Wargear from different shrines (Like the Autarch). Another guy kept kamikazing a cheap Mekaniak with a Vortex Grenade at me, taking out my Terminator Chief Librarian, Captain, or Land Raider every chance he could get. We sure as hell played to win. And like I said, I didn't just play with my friends, but against strangers at game stores, too.


I will say this. If you wanted to play SMs and win, there was always SWs.

I didn't need to play Space Wolves to win. I started with Space Wolves, but soon as Angels of Death came out, I switched over to Blood Angels and nearly always played them since then, performing about as well. And I always had a Tactical Squad in my Blood Angels army. And I certainly never considered them dead weight, or a hindrance.


And the Banshee was much less likely to face small arms fire because it could be advanced behind a screen of cheap Guardians. SMs had no such options...they just took the firepower in the face. That's one reason Terminators were so popular (other than the obvious -- assault cannons and drastically enhanced durability from power armored SMs).

Can't speak to your experience, but having played a game of 2nd edition at least once per week for the entire time it was out, my Space Marines almost never took it in the face. Nor did I ever have to rely on all-Terminator armies to win (Just as well, because I couldn't afford an all-Terminator army at the time, anyway. :p One squad for both Blood Angels and Space Wolves was more then enough for me). On the contrary, whether it was against Tyranids, or Chaos, or Orks, or Eldar, my Tactical Squads always performed well. If you had a different experience, well, that's your experience. Maybe you used less terrain then we did, for example. But in my experience, the average Space Marine performed brilliantly.

Smokedog
19-12-2006, 19:50
The emperor, although I admire you for your defense of 2nd edition, as I too loved it, I think comments like "I won nearly every game I ever played with my Blood Angels.." doesnt help convince people it was a better edition. If you had said someting like "I played many games and it was always fun I and I won about 50%" then maybe people will try it.

The Emperor
19-12-2006, 20:26
Edited my previous post. If anything else, it was a bit arrogant. :p Point is, Tactical Marines, when used well, performed well. All it took was a bit of careful maneuvering and staying out of the fire lanes of the more dangerous enemy units. Like Commissar von Toussaint has said, one of the great things about 2nd edition was the tactical flexibility of the game. The number of choices one could make for their squad.

For instance, in the case of Tactical Squads, I'd split them up into two 5-man Combat Squads, the heavy weapon squad staying behind while the special weapon squad advanced forward. With the heavy weapon squad, I could have the Heavy Weapon Marine fire at enemy tanks and dreadnoughts, while the Bolter armed Marines could Rapid Fire into enemy infantry. Meanwhile, the Special Weapon Combat Squad would be advancing under cover, staying out of the fire lanes of the enemy, firing at opportune targets with their Bolters (Which fired once up to 24", even on the move, unlike now). Once they got close, they could fire their bolters and their flamer, or throw grenades at the enemy, depending on what was more suitable (Frag Grenades, naturally, were better against Gretchin then they were against Chaos Marines. But then again, you could also throw Krak Grenades, too). And what happened most of the time was a short-range firefight, not a prelude to a hand-to-hand assault.

And if that forward Combat Squad was under threat of being charged, I could put the Heavy Weapon Combat Squad on Overwatch to guard against that while they kept pushing forward. If I wanted to avoid getting shot by a particularly powerful unit I could Hide, and be safe from getting shot, unless the enemy got within Initiative range.

There was a wealth of options one had at their disposal, and it was a huge amount of fun to play. More then anything else, it's the options that made 2nd edition what it was, and they're what I miss the most.

sigur
19-12-2006, 22:47
The emperor, although I admire you for your defense of 2nd edition, as I too loved it, I think comments like "I won nearly every game I ever played with my Blood Angels.." doesnt help convince people it was a better edition. If you had said someting like "I played many games and it was always fun I and I won about 50%" then maybe people will try it.

Thanks for these words of reason. In these dimensions we're talking about, winning counts almost nothing as it's so terribly based on your opponents.

The Emperor
19-12-2006, 23:08
Well, I was just arguing against the idea that Tactical Marines sucked, but nevermind. What IS important is if you have fun or not. And given that we played 2nd edition all the time for years on end, it definitely was fun. God knows we wouldn't have played it as often as we did if it sucked. On average it was one game per week, but sometimes we played 3 or 4 nights out of the week, playing games at the drop of a hat. And if somebody got the urge to play 40k, and no one else could play, then they'd go to a game store to find an opponent (Every game store in town at the time had regular 40k games, with one-to-two days a week devoted to 40k gaming). Nevermind the mega-battles we'd play every once in a while which would last all day saturday and sunday (Four a side, usually, with 2,000 to 3,000 points per army, although my memory's a bit hazy on the point totals). Dear God, were those battles bloodbaths! Play about 8 hours saturday, break for the evening, then come back sunday for another 6-8 hours to finish the battle.

Point is, it held our attention for a damn long time. 2nd edition was as interesting and tactically challenging on Day 1,264 as it was on Day 1. And that says a lot about the basic quality of the game. It certainly wasn't flawless, and I can roll off a list of things which can and should be changed, but overall the system was strong, fun, and challenging.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-12-2006, 00:54
Wow, people have made some strange claims about 2nd, but I've never heard the one that tactical squads sucked. :eek:

They are the mainstay of my army! I always break up my force into combat squads and as The Emperor said, tactical marines excel in almost every circumstance.

My gaming group has a healthy fear of them for that reason. Maybe you played on an open board, but we sure don't. Usually there are numerous ruined buildings or tons of woods, hills and other cover.

And I totally don't get how a single squad of terminators can wipe out a tactical army. My chaos army always fields a squad or two (the chaos lord and his retinue, naturally) and half the time they get caught in the open and reduced to ash by lascannons or the aforementioned multimeltas (I actually made a SM multi-melta figure out of a broken Tarantula. At the time I was enormously proud of him).

The problem with terminators is that they are few, slow and easily picked off by heavy weapons. They're also expensive as hell and if you don't get them into action, you've gift-wrapped points for the other player.

Half Eldar
20-12-2006, 10:08
One thing that has occured to me is all this stuff about how games used to take so long in 2nd ed. might actually be missing the mark entirely. 2nd ed. games had fewer models that did more stuff. And the nature of the force composition meant those models could be highly varied.

3rd. ed has more models, but now we see a lot more units repeated.

End result, if you found both of them equally fun: 4th. ed. costs more and takes longer to get ready to play. So now you've got a whole bunch of models who do a lot of the same things rather than have large variety in a few models.

Just an observation is, all, with the caveat that I found the former more fun myself, but I can't speak for everyone. Not to mention how much cheaper it was to buy 3 Banshees for 75 points and have a unit rather than 5 for 80.

scarletsquig
20-12-2006, 12:06
Oh yeah, I loved those eldar squads with a minimum size of 3. As a little 'un I could afford to spend my weekly fiver pocket money on a blister pack and have a new unit to paint up and play with each week! Plus, the club I went to tended to be pretty liberal when it came to giving away free stuff for competitions.. I won a box of skellies for having the loudest "WAAAGH!" :D

Ah, happy memories. I honestly think the hobby was a lot more fun back then.. 2nd edition was probably a pretty cumbersome unbalanced set of rules with some bloody confusing bits to remember (duh, what's the armour penetration of a reaper autocannon again? :P ), but I loved it.

I can't even remember any cries of "cheese" back then... we all tried to find the most gamebreaking thing we could in the codex and try to outwit each other. Cheese as standard worked just fine...

VenrableOne
20-12-2006, 14:26
Time to sum up this thread. At least I'll try. Just remember fun is relative.

Those who like 2nd have said that the game had depth, character, soul, was a memorable experience and was the gamers edition yet will admit some of the rules needed trimming. Those who disliked it have called it hero-hammer, over detailed, slow, too complicated, random and cumbersome yet will still remember one moment from game over ten years ago.

Those who like 4th say the game is fast. Those who dislike it refer to it as unbalanced and over simplified.

I'm a fan of 2nd what can I say. There weren't many comments made about what is good in 4th. Go ahead and write what you see as the pros and cons of each edition based on what people have written here.

Smokedog
20-12-2006, 15:58
..Or you could go one better and just put up a poll. "Which is better, 2nd edition or 4th edition of 40k?"

Sleazy
20-12-2006, 16:54
I hated 2ed. I actually stopped playing whilst that was out. i loved RT but hated the cartoony style and the way everything was yellow and orange primary colours (why??).

WFB at the time was just as bad.

intellectawe
20-12-2006, 16:59
2nd ed was a time when GW was a hobby company.
3rs ed marked the transition when GW became a company selling a hobby.


In 2nd ed, you were told by GW how to make up your own vehicles out of shampoo bottles in White Dwarf. White Dwarf had articles that were just pages of fluff on top of fluff on top of fluff. 2nd edition was a game that wasn't suited for a tournament setting, so the game took a day to play in your friend's backyard. The game had little exposure, and was a nich hobby for older players to enjoy on a Sunday afternoon.

But then GW became a publicly traded company in 94'...


In 3rd ed, you were told by GW how to buy their own vehicles which are now advertised in White Dwarf. White Dwarf had/has articles that were just pages of adverts on top of adverts on top of adverts. 3rd edition was a game that was/is suited for tournament setting, so the game took/takes 3 hours to play anywhere. The game has a lot of exposure, and is a mainstream product for all players to buy and use mainly for tournament settings.

And thats the truth.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-12-2006, 17:27
2nd edition was probably a pretty cumbersome unbalanced set of rules with some bloody confusing bits to remember (duh, what's the armour penetration of a reaper autocannon again? :P ), but I loved it.

That would be 8+2d6, same as a normal autocannon. Reapers of course got two sustained fire dice, re-rolling one. I love reapers. :skull:

And Half Eldar is dead right: You had smaller armies back then but they did more. The strangely maligned tactical squad was a case in point.

First thing is split the squad. One element serves as a fire base. The other is used to maneuver. So far, we're just like the current edition: 5-man squad.

But the "heavy" half had a lot more capabilities. You could plant and shoot, of course. But you could also move it and have the heavy weapon guy use his bolt pistol. Indeed, I've had several situations where anti-tank devastators faced by an infantry rush drew their bolt pistols and cut the attackers down.

And then there were grenades...

The point is that one squad could do about five different things every turn.

Now you get way more units, but each is super-specialized. Assault troops can't shoot, period. Since bolt pistols are only 12" range and everyone charges at least that far, you basically don't shoot with them unless you're bored or about to be overrun.

In 2nd, bolt pistols were the ultimate close range firefight weapon, allowing troops to effectively negate hard cover. They were also backup weapons for heavy weapon troopers.

To put it another way, you need about three squads to do what one could do in 2nd.

I've been pretty critical of the newer versions, but I will admit they do have their points.

The biggest is that the game "moves" faster and has more models for about the same amount of time. I don't think that it is faster (this isn't a race) but some people feel that games should involve moving lots of pieces across a board.

You certainly get to do that, though much of the movement is predictable and often inconsequential. But a lot of people like that sense of movement.

And it simply isn't as intellectually demanding. You don't have to think as hard.

When 3rd ed. came out, I was an early supporter. I loved it, bought all the books, added tons of stuff to my marine army and then bought an IG army for good measure.

In retrospect, my enthusiasm was misattributed: what I thought was a better game was really an easier game and there reason I liked it so much was that I won all the time.

My marines didn't lose. Ever. It took my a year of weekly games to finally lose a game and that was phenomenally bad luck.

In 2nd, my winning average was about .500. I can see why a lot of people like 3rd and 4th better. It is a much easier game to play, and everyone likes to win.

When I say it is easier to win, I mean the formula is much more readily apparent. All the units are specialized, as are the missions. It's simply a matter of crunching the numbers, setting up right and letting the dice do their work. That's why I built an Imperial Guard army: SM were too easy.

Sure enough, I found a formula that worked with the IG as well.

And that's when I lost interest. Partly it was because the supplements were getting too strange, the rules too weird and nothing was consistent with the fluff or made sense any more. I realized I wasn't using tactics, I was using FAQ rulings and special items to manipulate the game to victory.

It was like playing a CCG in a lot of ways: Build the killer deck with the right interrupts and event cards to force your opponent to do what you want. Layer the special rules so that you get multiple extras and victory is assured.

Now there's always been cheese, but this was GW-sanctioned cheese. White Dwarf (I was a subscriber back then) was even giving me hints on how to be even worse. The games weren't fun, they had no soul and everything came down to abstract mechanics.

So I quit.

A few years later I dusted off 2nd and was amazed at how much FUN I was having. Even when I lost, the games were awesome! Some were funny, but mostly they were tense, fluff-rich and interesting.

I guess that's why I get so annoyed with people who rip on 2nd and use the same old complaints (herohammer, too detailed, took too long). First off, the cheese is still there. Arguably it's worse because 2nd never billed itself as a tournament-style game.

But the main reason is that I'm sure a lot of people would play 2nd again if they only had an honest chance to do it. My gaming group totally revitalized when we rediscovered 2nd. Models I hadn't used for years were dusted off, repainted and we all began frantically collecting new armies. It's been a load of fun.

I hate to think that people might dissuade others from having as much fun as we are. So that's why I'm a little strident in my defense.

WokeUpDead
20-12-2006, 17:52
indeed.
it was the point values that changed from 2nd to 3rd that showed it best, IMO.
2nd was more of a fun game with few models but a lot of tactical options and F.U.N. GWs battle-reports were still "readable" and most games where between 1500 and 2000 points.
then comes 3rd and most things cost HALF their points - because the new system has such few and dull options, they simply doubled the number of minis on the table in the same 1500-2000 points. at the same time, prizes rise astronomically on most things and you just can't help but think: "hey.. these guys want to rip me off. the new system is so boring to play, yet I shall buy new stuff for hundreds of dollar/marks..?" why don't they just skip the rulebooks and say: "hey, we got a boring new system and yeah, we killed the fluff, but we still got cool minis - buy em!" at least it'd be honest.

in the days of 2nd I had a really big eldar army and played 1-2 times a week. 3rd stopped that. I think since 3rd was published I had about 10-20 games till NOW. It's just a so unchallenging and boring system like scissor-paper-rocks, that noone of us wants to play.
Honestly, the thing that keeps me in gw-products nowadays is the minis, that still look nice and the fond memories of times past (call me nostalgic ;)).

On a sidenote: to those who like more complex (gw-)games, try Epic Armageddon. great rule-system, nice minis. what more could you possibly want? ;)

The Emperor
20-12-2006, 17:59
But the "heavy" half had a lot more capabilities. You could plant and shoot, of course. But you could also move it and have the heavy weapon guy use his bolt pistol. Indeed, I've had several situations where anti-tank devastators faced by an infantry rush drew their bolt pistols and cut the attackers down.

Not to mention that the heavy weapon trooper got to fire at different targets. Let's take a standard 10-man Imperial Guard squad with a Meltagun and Lascannon. They're getting approached by a mob of 10 Orks and an Ork Dreadnought.

In the current edition, you can only have the unit fire at one or the other, not both. So the Guardsmen choose the Ork Mob, with the Meltagun and Lascannon killing a single Ork each, in addition to any casualties inflicted by the Lasguns. Meanwhile, the Ork Dreadnought is still bearing down on them.

Or they could shoot at the Ork Dreadnought. The Meltagun and Lascannon, combined, reduce it to molten slag. Which is nice, because the other 8 Guardsmen in the squad all fired their Lasguns at the Ork Dreadnought and did nothing but smudge the paint job, and they never, not in a million years, would've ever had a prayer of damaging it.

In 2nd edition, however, you could have the 8 Guardsmen with their Lasguns open fire on the 10-strong Ork Mob, while the Guardsmen with the Meltagun and the Lascannon could open fire on the Ork Dreadnought. In short, they represented soldiers with functioning brains, who realize that some weapons are better used on certain targets then on others.

The same is true of tanks. Thankfully with 4th edition, they brought back the ability to fire all your weapons on the move (Though it depends on the weapons you've got. But overall I'm fairly happy with the results, though it'd be nice if my Land Raider didn't have to rely on the BS 2 Machine Spirit to fire the second Twin-Linked Lascannon turret). However, they still got the same problem of being unable to engage separate targets. Take a Leman Russ Battle Tank. You've got the Battle Cannon gunner, the Lascannon gunner, and the gunners for the Heavy Bolter turrets. They each have their own view of the battlefield, yet they all have to fire at the same target? What's the point of having a turret which can rotate and point in any direction if it has to fire at the same target as the other guns on the tank, which face forward and to the side? Nevermind common sense. Would the Heavy Bolter gunner REALLY fire at the Chaos Land Raider that the Battle Cannon and Lascannon gunners are firing at? The Heavy Bolter gunner has GOT to know that his weapon doesn't have a prayer of harming that Chaos Land Raider. Wouldn't he instead open fire on the Chaos Cultists trying to sneak up on the tanks side with their Krak Grenades and Melta Bombs? Would the Lascannon gunner fire at the Hormagaunts that the Heavy Bolter gunners are shooting at, or would he target the Carnifex?

When it came to Devastator Squads, you actually had a reason to mix the kinds of heavy weapons contained within the squad. A Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Missile Launcher, and Lascannon was actually a sensible combination. And the Bolter armed Marines were more then simply ablative wounds for the squad. They, along with the Heavy Bolter and Plasma Cannon/Heavy Plasma Gun, could open fire on the nearest infantry unit, while the Lascannon and Missile Launcher (with Krak Missiles) could open fire at the nearest vehicle. In short, every member of the squad was useful. You didn't have a situation where you took a Space Marine squad simply for the Plasma Gun and Lascannon, and so on. 3rd edition was supposed to usher in the age of the infantryman. Yet they dumbed down the infantryman, making them fire at targets they'd never shoot at all for the sake of expediency. Allowing them to split fire, again, would go a long way towards making infantrymen better.

Torgo
20-12-2006, 18:11
I hate to think that people might dissuade others from having as much fun as we are. So that's why I'm a little strident in my defense.

I would never attempt to dissuade someone from trying 2nd edition. If I met an interested party in person, I would even offer to play a game with them using my old 2nd editon stuff. But I prefer 4th edition because I have found it to be better balanced and more fun to play. You obviously disagree, and that's your right. But you don't have to be a "win at all costs" tournament style player to prefer a streamlined system.

WokeUpDead
20-12-2006, 18:12
Allowing them to split fire, again, would go a long way towards making infantrymen better.

yes and no:

the thing is: the point values are worked into it these days (lascannon in tacsquad cheaper than on devs, etc).
splitting fire is/was kind of a nobrainer, it's one of the things I like about 3rd/4th. Making a hard decision what to do with the squad. If the heavies can split, there's no decision to make, it's obvious what it should target.
Not as realistical? maybe. more challenging? definitely. if you try to picture what a heavy can/could do under 4th ed rules.. no. in that system it's better it works as it is now. everything else would make hvy weapons even more popular and turn 40k into a very dull game (even more boring than it is now ;)).
it was okay in the 2nd ed. ruleset, it would break the 4th ed ruleset.

The Emperor
20-12-2006, 18:35
Suffice to say, Mr. Fooey, I disagree with you. :p The points costs can always be changed with the next Codex, so that wouldn't be an issue. As for making hard decisions, having hard decisions before you is always good, so long as it isn't at the expense of common sense. And it makes no sense for the guys with the Bolters to shoot at the Chaos Dreadnought just because the guy with the Lascannon shot it, when they know they can't possibly damage it, and when they've got a unit of Bloodletters running at them.

EDIT: Maybe that would break 4th edition, I don't know, haven't playtested it. But when I picture 5th edition, I don't picture it as being exactly the same as 4th edition with just that one rule added, but with the best elements of 2nd married to the best elements of 4th. Who knows what that would end up looking like, though? Hmm. I think I'm gonna start writing some ideas down, see where it takes me.

WokeUpDead
20-12-2006, 18:47
both valid points. I didn't say it couldn't be done - I said it couldn't be done in the 4th ed ruleset ;) I too would rather see an edition 2.4 or 4.2; I just wanted to hint that things are not THAT easy to solve in 4th ;)

cav da man
20-12-2006, 20:04
I think 3rd edition and 4th edition both swung the pendulum too far in one direction after 2nd edition.

There are rules I miss from 2nd ed, and rules I don't.

I'm not sorry that ASM went, not because of math, but because of realism. In reality, bullets either go through armour, or they don't, there really isn't a 'sort of'.

A flak jacket lets rifle bullets through, so no armour save at all, whilst it stops pistol slugs completely. However, that's only if it actually HITS the flak.

Think of it like this:

Rifle
flak on chest: 100% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration

Pistol
flak on chest: 0% penetration
unarmoured chest: 100% penetration.

Thus, a guardsman's 5+ armour save - it doesn't cover the whole body, but if a weapon penetrates the armour, it doesn't matter WHERE it is, whilst their is a 1 in 3 chance a pistol round will hit flak.

That is why I don't mind AP. Bullets are an all or nothing affair.

Hellebore
Can i point out that thats simply not true, situations change and so do results. Some weapons dont even need to penetrate, nobody cares if your wearing your super shiny anti bullet shield if you get hit with a hammer or a big chunk of rock. It is true that things generally go through or not !BUT!, however you can fire a round and just because of how it hit the jacket or because of some other factor the round glances off or takes enough energy to not kill you and then the next one hits you straight on and goes through, thats what the system means to me. A more powerful gun makes it easier to kill people but it doesnt just punch a clean whole through that persons protection, armor doesn't suddenly turn to swiss cheese and it will still affect that bullet just not always enough to make a difference.
In reality you dont stop wearing bullet proof vests because every gun toting maniac out there has a 50cal rifle.


Hope there's some sense in there, knowing me there are more mispelt words than not and terrible grammar.


Have fun decoding whatevers left :rolleyes:

The Emperor
20-12-2006, 20:17
I said it couldn't be done in the 4th ed ruleset ;)

Indubitably, my good man. Forgive me for not being clearer. :)


I too would rather see an edition 2.4 or 4.2; I just wanted to hint that things are not THAT easy to solve in 4th ;)

Heh, Warhammer 40,000 Edition 4.2. :D True enough, though, that you can't just slot it in.

Half Eldar
20-12-2006, 20:17
Well, 4th ed. has work arounds. It's not a hard decision, because if you want AT you take a lascannon in a 5 man tac squad with 4 ablative wounds now. Where in 2e you'd have the tac squad, and it could split fire, now you'd just have two tac squads, is all.

As to the ASM v. AP thing: when we started playing 3rd. ed. I picked up Eldar, I had a friend with Orks, and a third friend with DE. Then there was the Chaos player and the SM player. The Heavy Bolter ALWAYS earned between 3-10 times its points cost - depending on whether it was in a 5 man Tac or a Dev.

But then the Chaos and Marine player have a game, and suddenly it's a lot less useful. How does one begin to balance the AP system against different armies?

Setrus
20-12-2006, 20:39
Would one 2nd edition veteran start a thread where there's suggestions as to what in 2nd should be in 4th while at the same time making it workable?

I would love hearing the rules and how they would work in it... :D

Yorrik
20-12-2006, 20:51
I've never played a 2nd edition game, but I dislike it anyway, because the only time I hear about it is when I'm in the middle of a game and either my opponent or a spectator will fire off a lecture about how 2nd edition was more detailed/made more sense/had cooler stuff, or whatever. It always seems like my opponent (or the spectator) would rather chew the fat about that one time Yarrik threw a frag grenade and it scattered back onto himself and killed him than play this new interesting game and make a new memory.

Anyway, I've also noticed that most of the good memories of 2nd edition I hear about have to do with something silly or random, and I don't like silly and random in my wargames.

WokeUpDead
20-12-2006, 21:00
@setrus - if it was that easy to solve the problems 4th has - it would have been done already ;)
problem is not a few / lot of points, but the system itself. alter this or that radical and EVERYTHING needs to be rebalanced, point- and rulewise. IMO the easiest way to "fix" 4th is to throw it and/or ALL codizes into the trash-can and start from scratch.
I'm not saying that 2nd was perfect, nor that 4th is bad - but you can't just implement rules like overwatch or hiding (I won't even start on AP/ASM) without changing point-costs all over the board.

@yorrik - wait a few years. then you'll be the guy who talks about how good 4th was and of memories from these times ;)
besides: having never tried something but judging it is rather pointless. basically, what you're saying is: "I won't eat my spinach. I've never tried it, but I just know it must be horrible. bah!" .. and I don't want to sound insulting, but that's not very mature. At least try it before judging it ;)

nightgant98c
21-12-2006, 01:16
And most of the truly memorable things that have happened in my games of 3rd and 4th were pretty random or silly. Stuff that would happen one time in a thousand. So there isn't that much difference, from my perspective.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-12-2006, 01:21
the thing is: the point values are worked into it these days (lascannon in tacsquad cheaper than on devs, etc).

Indeed, which is why I always fielded my points in the most efficient way possible. It all comes down to numbers.


splitting fire is/was kind of a nobrainer, it's one of the things I like about 3rd/4th. Making a hard decision what to do with the squad. If the heavies can split, there's no decision to make, it's obvious what it should target.

But it isn't a "hard" decision. All the squads you field are optimised. Your AT squad is just that: an AT squad. The guys with bolters are ablative armor for the heavy weapons.

Your anti-infantry squad is your anti-infantry squad.

Since you get twice as many models for the point, you don't face the same situation at all. The lascannon-based squad squibs the dreadnought and the heavy bolter squad vaporized the boyz.

That's what I was getting at.

What is more, because of the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, in most cases the wrong squad is simply screwed. There is no adjustment, you just scrub the squad.

The classic example is the one I gave above: devastators armed with anti-tank weapons getting assaulted by infantry. In the current rules, they're just done. Move on, see you next game.

But in 2nd, you had several options:

1. Run away
2. Throw grenades
3. Engage with bolt pistols
4. Engage ineffectively with heavy weapons.

Since chargers move at twice the speed (at least) of everybody else, running isn't an option any more.

And since you don't throw grenades, scratch that.

Marines no longer get bolt pistols as side arms, so that too is gone.

So instead of a "hard decision" you get one option: die in place while shooting futilely.

Look, it's great that you like the game that is being played. I sometimes wish I could share that enthusiasm but I simply can't suspend disbelief enough to get back into the game.

I guess that's why I find people who call 2nd edition cheesy kind of strange. This edition embodies imbalance. Someone mentioned the heavy bolter earlier.

What a joke! It's great against some armies and useless against others. How do you fairly set the points on that? What the AP system does is create an inherent imbalance. A S4 AP2 weapon is meaningless against every race except space marines. Against them it is terror incarnate.

How do you assign points for that?

Setrus: A lot of those threads get started and then bog down and disappear. The reason is that everyone likes a common rules set. That's why people either play 2nd or 4th, but not a lot play hybrids.

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 01:47
..Or you could go one better and just put up a poll. "Which is better, 2nd edition or 4th edition of 40k?"

You'd be better off asking what rules people would keep from each edition but thats sounds a lot like work.:eek:
I guess if someone asked nicely.:angel:


Would one 2nd edition veteran start a thread where there's suggestions as to what in 2nd should be in 4th while at the same time making it workable?

I would love hearing the rules and how they would work in it... :D

Oh...go ahead and ask nicely.:D
If someone else hasn't started one by tomorrow I will. I just don't have time right now.


I hated 2ed. I actually stopped playing whilst that was out. i loved RT but hated the cartoony style and the way everything was yellow and orange primary colours (why??).

So it was just the aesthetics and color scheme that keep you from enjoying it?


2nd ed was a time when GW was a hobby company.
3rs ed marked the transition when GW became a company selling a hobby.

I loved this comment. Its just so true.

The Emperor
21-12-2006, 01:57
Marines no longer get bolt pistols as side arms, so that too is gone.

Fortunately, with the new Dark Angels Codex, they're bringing back a lot of elements of 2nd edition Space Marines. For instance, they're bringing back Combat Squads, and all power armoured Marines and Scouts will be armed with Bolt Pistols, Frag Grenades, and Krak Grenades as standard. So that's certainly a step in the right direction. So they'll get one more option, at the least. If an enemy unit gets close enough to assault, then they can draw their Bolt Pistols and Rapid Fire into them.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-12-2006, 02:11
I guess that's something.

Here's a question: When 4th ed. fades into 5th, will there be loyalists that return to 3rd or 4th?

Half Eldar
21-12-2006, 03:23
... than play this new interesting game and make a new memory.
Anyway, I've also noticed that most of the good memories of 2nd edition I hear about have to do with something silly or random, and I don't like silly and random in my wargames.

I can totally understand getting irate when someone goes on and on about something like that... but on the other hand, what interesting memories do we have now?
'Well, this one time my dreadnought charged a squad and they stood around for two rounds while the dread killed it.'
'Yarrick used frag grenades - oh wait he's in the open it doesn't matter.'
'My 5 man Dev squad was being swamped by 30 gaunts, so I had the other 5 Devs with heavy bolters open up on them.'

Hardly the stuff of legends.


So it was just the aesthetics and color scheme that keep you from enjoying it?

Well, I have to say I don't much like going through the colour section of 2nd ed. Codexes much these days, and the layout wasn't my thing either. Come to think of it, I really hate the layout of the new Eldar codex too. Nonetheless, 40k 3+4 are also not entirely my thing, but generally I do prefer the atmosphere of the books.



Here's a question: When 4th ed. fades into 5th, will there be loyalists that return to 3rd or 4th?

Nope! Either 5th ed. will be largely the same so there'll be no point, or 5th ed. will be significantly better - FWIW if GW wants to make a game that has a lot of models with few options their formula is pretty good, and within those constraints it's reasonably fun.


Fortunately, with the new Dark Angels Codex, they're bringing back a lot of elements of 2nd edition Space Marines. For instance, they're bringing back Combat Squads, and all power armoured Marines and Scouts will be armed with Bolt Pistols, Frag Grenades, and Krak Grenades as standard. So that's certainly a step in the right direction. So they'll get one more option, at the least. If an enemy unit gets close enough to assault, then they can draw their Bolt Pistols and Rapid Fire into them.

Yeah, the rumours for the DA definitely do seem to be the sort that would get me to play them. Now if they'd apply that to the core rules as well, I think we'd be making real progress.

WokeUpDead
21-12-2006, 12:49
But it isn't a "hard" decision. All the squads you field are optimised. Your AT squad is just that: an AT squad. The guys with bolters are ablative armor for the heavy weapons.

erm.. no?! If I fielded ablative wounds, then yes. but IMO that's waste of points. I like to use 'your' meatshields as soldiers, and still carry a hvy weapon, for eg. Guardians with a brightlance, DE with a darklance, orks with rokkit launchers etc.
Just because "optimising" for one use seems to be the answer that many players see, it has not to be the only one out there. That's more a thing of playstyle, not the rules. (I can't believe I'm defending 4th here ;), but it is not THAT bad).


Your anti-infantry squad is your anti-infantry squad.

Since you get twice as many models for the point, you don't face the same situation at all. The lascannon-based squad squibs the dreadnought and the heavy bolter squad vaporized the boyz.

That's what I was getting at.

What is more, because of the rock/paper/scissors nature of the game, in most cases the wrong squad is simply screwed. There is no adjustment, you just scrub the squad.

and that's why I carry around something else, so my paper-units CAN beat the scissor ;) (for example) granted, 1 guardian unit with 1 lance is not gonna do it. but 2 or 3 have a decend chance and are still an effective unit. just because something looks 1-dimensional, it doesn't have to be.



The classic example is the one I gave above: devastators armed with anti-tank weapons getting assaulted by infantry. In the current rules, they're just done. Move on, see you next game.

But in 2nd, you had several options:

1. Run away
2. Throw grenades
3. Engage with bolt pistols
4. Engage ineffectively with heavy weapons.

Since chargers move at twice the speed (at least) of everybody else, running isn't an option any more.

And since you don't throw grenades, scratch that.

Marines no longer get bolt pistols as side arms, so that too is gone.

So instead of a "hard decision" you get one option: die in place while shooting futilely.

1. you can still run away? okay, not at running speed, but if you MOVE instead of standing still, it still works aside from jump infantry and the like (which got you under 2nd ed, too).
2. granted, no option anymore (and IMO, it's better that way. grenades took ages to work through. okay, not to say they couldn't have been better implemented in new editions, but the way they work now is at least better than the way they worked in 2nd).
3. how bout "engage with bolters"? they are still good weapons and if you're not min/maxing, you should have a couple of them in the squad.
4. how bout engaging EFFECTIVELY with heavies? unlike 2nd, devs have a decent chance in CC and still beat the crap out of many units?



Look, it's great that you like the game that is being played. I sometimes wish I could share that enthusiasm but I simply can't suspend disbelief enough to get back into the game.

I guess that's why I find people who call 2nd edition cheesy kind of strange. This edition embodies imbalance. Someone mentioned the heavy bolter earlier.


erm.. is that still adressed to me? if so: read again, buddy ;) :P



What a joke! It's great against some armies and useless against others. How do you fairly set the points on that? What the AP system does is create an inherent imbalance. A S4 AP2 weapon is meaningless against every race except space marines. Against them it is terror incarnate.

How do you assign points for that?

my points exactly - so why do you ask me?! ;)

The Emperor
21-12-2006, 13:02
3. how bout "engage with bolters"? they are still good weapons and if you're not min/maxing, you should have a couple of them in the squad.

I was under the impression that the heavy weapons replaced the bolters.


2. granted, no option anymore (and IMO, it's better that way. grenades took ages to work through. okay, not to say they couldn't have been better implemented in new editions, but the way they work now is at least better than the way they worked in 2nd).

I disagree. As I've said, I've got a big problem with grenades which don't actually kill the enemy. Resolving each grenade one at a time wasn't so great, either, but the current system is hardly an improvement. If anything, they both suck equally, in different ways.

WokeUpDead
21-12-2006, 13:13
a) they do. but you still have some models with bolters in the squad that fire while moving, right? ;)

b) so we agree to disagree ;) - As said, I'm not happy with them either, but am glad that pain in the ass from 2nd named grenades is gone. actually, this could have been easy to solve within the 4th ruleset. simply make them weapons. krak is fine as now (and would be "realistically" of no use when charged, because of the "point-explosion" rather than area effect, but frag could easily and simply be sth like "S3, range: 6/9/12, assault2, pinning, ignore cover" - SOMETHING along these lines would do it IMO.
important is only assault (on the move), pinning (hence a decent chance to stop an assault), and no template to quickly work through a lot of them.

gorgon
21-12-2006, 19:03
Wow, people have made some strange claims about 2nd, but I've never heard the one that tactical squads sucked. :eek:

They are the mainstay of my army! I always break up my force into combat squads and as The Emperor said, tactical marines excel in almost every circumstance.

Umm...yeah.

Let's put it this way. At the 1998 Baltimore GT, I was told I was the ONLY SM player to bring a tactical squad.

Now think about that. Even if someone's never played the game before, seeing an *entire GT full of experienced players* gearing up to win games abandoning an unit as basic as tactical marines has to tell you something.

I ended up winning best composition at that tournament, but from a gameplay standpoint, there's no question I would have been much, much better off with a Terminator squad.

Regarding The Emperor's comment that inflexibility of squad size isn't a disadvantage compared to flexible squad sizes, well...I don't know how to respond. Clearly, being able to customize squad sizes is a competitive advantage, especially given the way the 2nd ed VP system works. I can tell you later USGTs actually allowed SM players to purchase single combat squads because it was so obvious what a huge disadvantage this was.

And sure, Guardians died in droves. But they were cheap, had the best basic weapon in the game and could advance while firing it to maximum potential, screening more expensive units behind. Point-for-point, Guardians with shuricats trump tactical marines badly. They're just SM killers. Seriously, I can't believe anyone who played 2nd ed 40K in an even semi-competitive manner would ever doubt the effectiveness of shuricats.


And I totally don't get how a single squad of terminators can wipe out a tactical army.

Not sure who claimed that, so that's looking like a bit of a strawman argument from here.


The problem with terminators is that they are few, slow and easily picked off by heavy weapons. They're also expensive as hell and if you don't get them into action, you've gift-wrapped points for the other player.

See, I'll take that over being slow and easily picked off with basic firepower. Second ed. Terminators are only about double the point cost of tacticals, yet have many times the durability and equal range.

Seriously now, I realize you guys like 2nd ed., and I had fun with the game too. But you have to start keeping it real on some of your points.

gorgon
21-12-2006, 19:19
LOL! The people I played with were the biggest cheese mongers in the world! The Eldar player I played against, for instance, tried convincing me that Exarchs could take Wargear from different shrines (Like the Autarch).

You realize they could, right? At one time, the Exarch with Hawk wings or Spider harness and Maugetar was a pretty common sight. After weapon rarities became official, that changed, but Exarches never had to be dedicated to a single shrine. That's not cheesy at all, it's playing by the rules.

The Emperor
21-12-2006, 19:23
You realize they could, right? At one time, the Exarch with Hawk wings or Spider harness and Maugetar was a pretty common sight.

No, they couldn't. It was a misreading of the wargear section of the Eldar Codex.

EDIT: I see where the confusion is. I'm talking about an Exarch with Swooping Hawk Wings, Swooping Hawk Grenade Pack, and a Howling Banshee Mask chosen from the Eldar Exarch Wargear list. I'm not talking about Wargear cards.


Clearly, being able to customize squad sizes is a competitive advantage, especially given the way the 2nd ed VP system works. I can tell you later USGTs actually allowed SM players to purchase single combat squads because it was so obvious what a huge disadvantage this was.

I remember that. And it wasn't because 10-man squads sucked. It was because of the nature of a tournament. In regular play, you could change your army for every battle, but with a tournament, you kept the same exact army list and had to use them against whatever army you happened to come up, against. And since Space Marines came in at 300 points for 10-men, it limited the amount of variability one could put in their army. It was a change for the sake of tournament play and tournament play, alone.


Now think about that. Even if someone's never played the game before, seeing an *entire GT full of experienced players* gearing up to win games abandoning an unit as basic as tactical marines has to tell you something.

You got me. 2nd edition was never designed to be a tournament game. Sadly, it was designed to be a fun game. :cries: :p That says less about the effectiveness of the Tactical Squad, though, and more on the demands of a tournament setting. Once again, tournament games are NOT representative of normal games, where you can change your army list from game to game. Versatility is what you need in an army list for a tournament, even if it means some units go to waste against certain opponents. People dropped Tactical Squads in order to get Assault Squads and Devastator Squads because they didn't know what opponents they'd be facing. Besides, when it came to Devastator Squads, you effectively had half-a-Tactical Squad, anyway. So in that case, it was a fairly easy choice.


Quote And I totally don't get how a single squad of terminators can wipe out a tactical army. Not sure who claimed that, so that's looking like a bit of a strawman argument from here.

Read the thread. There's a poster who said a squad of Terminators did just that to his army.

Midknightwraith
21-12-2006, 19:59
Not sure who claimed that, so that's looking like a bit of a strawman argument from here.


Read the thread. There's a poster who said a squad of Terminators did just that to his army.

I'll fess up, that was me. And it is not an exageration. I had I think (it has been over 12 years at this point) 2 Tac Squads with Flamers/Missle Launchers split into Combat Squads, an Assault squad with mostly HtH weapons, some Bikes, a captain, and a librarian.

My opponent had a squad of 5 chaos terminators, some sorcerer guy, and a vehicle or two. The Terminators Teleported in shot up a squad killed it charged into another squad and killed it (these had the Missle Launchers). Then Proceeded to gun down the rest of my force from behind. Game ended in about 3 turns.

I never played with or against Terminators again until 3rd.

Half Eldar
21-12-2006, 20:28
The question is, is 3/4 any more balanced in terms of tournament compositions?

gorgon
21-12-2006, 20:52
I remember that. And it wasn't because 10-man squads sucked. It was because of the nature of a tournament. In regular play, you could change your army for every battle, but with a tournament, you kept the same exact army list and had to use them against whatever army you happened to come up, against. And since Space Marines came in at 300 points for 10-men, it limited the amount of variability one could put in their army. It was a change for the sake of tournament play and tournament play, alone.

But the context doesn't really matter. There's ALWAYS greater efficiency in being able to buy points in smaller blocks. That allows you to better work the VP thresholds as well as generally squeeze in more stuff. And that's going to make your army more effective in either a friendly or tournament game.

Now, if you're going to claim that kind of fine-tuning of army lists is more of a tournament mentality/thing and not relevant to friendly gaming, that's a different argument. But that's also akin to saying "if you don't care about things being balanced, it's not a big deal." And there are some players who want balance no matter how serious the game is.

Second edition was a fun game, but it was no better balanced than 3rd or 4th ed, and probably worse. Take everything people say about how tough SMs are now, and paste over "SMs" with the word "Eldar," and that pretty much gives you 2nd ed in a nutshell.

Half Eldar: I believe the percentage of SM armies was about the same as it is now, just because everyone kinda has a SM army. But SMs didn't finish nearly as well as they do now. IIRC, I was the only SM player in the top 10 at the 1997 Baltimore GT. I can try to dig up those results. Jervis J. told us at that tournament that GW's research showed Eldar tended to be the dominant tournament army.

Furthermore, understand the USGTs were a comp-judged environment, so some of the really egregious 2nd ed stuff (beaucoup Pulsa Rokkitt armies, etc.) didn't see the field.

Snotteef
21-12-2006, 21:58
Part 1

I wish there weren't so much venom in this thread! Can't people just say: "I like 2nd/4th because," without calling people stupid or unable to grasp tactics?

I like 4th many times better than I did 2nd and I have played 40k since the last days of Rogue Trader through the present. There are tactics in every edition, just different kinds. I didn't like 2nd, because it was terribly unbalanced and it was easy for powerplayers to abuse (in an environment where I didn't have many opponents to choose from), but when I played against someone who just wanted to have fun, it was a good time. Additionally, I like wargames with lots of models and 2nd was not it. It was more of a skirmish game. Point in case, look at the marine army posted earlier in the thread.

I am not stupid, I am not unable to grasp tactics and I am not a kid, yet I prefer
4th edition. I can respect that other people prefer 2nd edition without attacking them; all I am asking for is that others do the same.

Part 2

All this talk has created a little bit of nostalgia for the old days. I especially miss running. That was an option which did not slow the game down and added flexibility. I wish that in 4th every unit could eschew the shooting phase to move an extra 3 inches (not much farther than a running human in 2nd edition;) ). Fleet of Foot models could still fleet in addition. Sadly, this would radically alter the balance of the game, so we won't be seeing it any time soon (or ever). Still, I miss it. *tear*

VenrableOne
21-12-2006, 23:55
I wish there weren't so much venom in this thread! Can't people just say: "I like 2nd/4th because," without calling people stupid or unable to grasp tactics?

This is one of the tamest discussions I've ever seen on the subject.

On the subject of tactics.

The rules dictate the tactics. This doesn't matter what game your playing. Be it cards, monopoly or 40k. The rules let you know what you can and can not do.

Then any strategy is planned within what the rules permit. I may need a certain suit of cards to open, I can only build one hotel on a property and I can't move a heavy weapon and shoot it in the same turn.

Tomorrow, if GW was to say all heavy weapons may move 3 inches and still fire on the same turn. Tactics would drastically change.

So maybe tactics, like the reality argument, should be left out of this.:D

The Emperor
22-12-2006, 02:11
And there are some players who want balance no matter how serious the game is.

And you think tournament results are the way to gage balance?

Arguing that so-and-so army was weak because of tournament results isn't much of an argument. Tournaments are completely different from the norm in gaming. What may be weak or inbalanced in a tournament setting would be perfectly balanced in a standard 40k game. How do regular games and tournaments differ?

In normal games, you're more often then not going to know what army you're going to play against, whereas with tournaments it's pretty much a surprise. You can tailor your army to fight the opponent you're about to face, whereas with a tournament you have to use the army list you already made and can't change it. That is NOT the same, and you can't use the results from one to judge how rules are balanced in the other.

That's why Eldar won tournaments. Their minimum 3-man squads allowed them to take pretty much anything to cover every situation and then some. Yeah, in a tournament setting, their variable squad size was a blessing while the Space Marine 10-man squads were a hindrance, but that was solely in tournaments. In normal game settings, against an opponent who was expecting an Eldar army and prepared for it, those tournament winning armies wouldn't perform nearly as well.

gorgon
22-12-2006, 14:06
Again, that argument makes zero sense. If normal games are about tailoring your force to an opponent, isn't it *dramatically* easier to tailor it if you have variable squad sizes that let you min-max? Moreover, just in terms of units, Eldar would *easily* have the edge in being able to customize for an opponent. That codex simply had too many nasty units in all shapes, sizes and varieties.

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

gorgon
22-12-2006, 14:09
Okay! I found my results sheets from the 1997 and 1998 Baltimore GTs. Unfortunately, I just have hard copies, so I can't manipulate them in Excel without typing them all in. But some counting and math showed some interesting trends.

The major takeaways:

-Eldar and Orks were clearly dominant.
-There was probably greater army diversity than today, but fewer generic SM armies than I remembered. Generic SMs did very poorly, overall.
-Chaos was the most prevalent power armor army.


Baltimore 1997 - 50 participants

Top 10 overall: Eldar, Orks, Eldar/Eldar, Orks/SMs (me), Eldar, SWs, Chaos, Eldar.
Top 10 battle points: Eldar, Eldar/Orks, Eldar, Eldar/Orks, Tyranids, Eldar/SWs, Orks.

Army breakdown:
Eldar 18%
Orks 12%
SMs 10%
SWs 6%
Chaos 22%
Tyranids 8%
DAs 6%
IG 14%
Genestealer Cult 4%


Baltimore 1998 - 56 participants

Top 10 overall: Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, Tyranids, Eldar, SMs, Chaos, BAs, Orks, Eldar. (I finished tied for 12th.)
Top 10 battle points: Eldar, Eldar, Tyranids, Tyranids/Sisters, SWs, Orks, Orks, Chaos/Chaos/Stealer Cult.

Army breakdown:
Eldar 14.3
Orks 14.3
SMs 8.9
SWs 8.9
Chaos 19.6
Tyranids 7.1
DAs 3.6
IG 14.3
Genestealer Cult 3.6
BAs 3.6
Sisters 1.8%

Notes:
-Of the 8 Eldar armies, not one finished below 27th place.
-The 1998 tournament had more special rules, including allowing SMs to buy combat squads, removal of strategy cards, no level 3 psychic cards, etc. The 1997 tournament was basically "straight-up" 40K.

gorgon
22-12-2006, 14:26
As a follow-up to my last post, remember that those tournaments were a comp environment, and back then the judges graded your composition, not your opponents. While I can't prove this quantitatively, my qualitative experience says that the Eldar and Ork players could have cheesed out to a much higher degree (and that their cheese "ceiling" was higher than that of SMs with the possible exception of SWs).

Karloth Valois
23-12-2006, 00:16
Its interesting to see that people feel one of the major talking points/downsides of 2nd edition was that Space Marines are not the uberised dominant army that they are in 3rd/4th edition. Almost as if the entire system is faulty and rubbish if SM are not the top dog, I think it goes to show how much not only the rules but the playerbase, general perception of the 40k universe and game system have changed since 2nd ed.

Personally I think SM were a much more interesting army back in 2nd, the variation in army lists was greater at least and they felt more like the elite force that they should be than they are now.

I was wondering what most people would prefer?: 2nd edition with the 3rd ed. close combat, vehicle penetration, points values and wargear, and a bit of general simplification, or, 3rd edition with BS and armour save modifiers, more complex vehicles rules, and different movement values, i.e. 2nd ed with the best bits from 3rd ed, or 3rd ed. with the best bits from 2nd ed?

gorgon
23-12-2006, 05:09
Its interesting to see that people feel one of the major talking points/downsides of 2nd edition was that Space Marines are not the uberised dominant army that they are in 3rd/4th edition. Almost as if the entire system is faulty and rubbish if SM are not the top dog, I think it goes to show how much not only the rules but the playerbase, general perception of the 40k universe and game system have changed since 2nd ed.

Personally, I don't want to see SMs be the top dog. Ideally, no army should be the top dog. The reason SMs became so strong in 3rd ed was because they were so weak in 2nd. They've occupied a central place in the 40K universe since RT, but it wasn't until 3rd that their performance on the tabletop really reflected their "elite" nature. It wasn't wrong to give them a boost.

But as usual with GW, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. Then once the other 3rd ed armies caught up with them, they got boosted again. I really can't imagine what they were thinking in regards to aspects of their 4th ed codex.

FashaTheDog
23-12-2006, 05:49
I miss the foot shaped template from 2nd edition for the Foot of Gork/Mork power. If GW released a special Ork only template shaped like a foot, I would buy an entire Ork army just to use it.

I also miss having Weirdboyz have their heads blow up and cause a chain reaction among nearby Orks. That was always fun. Ramming was also amazing. Oh look, my tank has no guns. Oh well, time to run over infantry and small vehicles and not need their consent to crush them!

VenrableOne
23-12-2006, 13:31
I was wondering what most people would prefer?: 2nd edition with the 3rd ed. close combat, vehicle penetration, points values and wargear, and a bit of general simplification, or, 3rd edition with BS and armour save modifiers, more complex vehicles rules, and different movement values, i.e. 2nd ed with the best bits from 3rd ed, or 3rd ed. with the best bits from 2nd ed?

I don't care how they do it, as long as the rules are consistent, logical, balanced and fun. It would also be nice if there were basic/tournament rules and advanced/optional rules.

FashaTheDog
23-12-2006, 18:51
VenrableOne, you're going to have to wait until at least 5th Edition for that. Or a major overhaul of GW's FAQ policy.

VenrableOne
23-12-2006, 19:10
VenrableOne, you're going to have to wait until at least 5th Edition for that. Or a major overhaul of GW's FAQ policy.

I'm going to have to wait until the bean counters no longer run things. :rolleyes:

When, and only when, the gamers get back to running things will it get better.:D

Pacific
23-12-2006, 19:11
Part 1
I like 4th many times better than I did 2nd and I have played 40k since the last days of Rogue Trader through the present. There are tactics in every edition, just different kinds. I didn't like 2nd, because it was terribly unbalanced and it was easy for powerplayers to abuse (in an environment where I didn't have many opponents to choose from), but when I played against someone who just wanted to have fun, it was a good time.


This is exactly what I wanted to say.

I know I might get some name calling as a result of this statement, but I think it needs to be said: 2nd editions days were numbered the moment that 40k really started to take off in the US, and I mean that by the increase in 'tournament play'. This was something that proved to be incredibly popular in the States, but was not (and still isnt by comparison) in the UK. By that I mean, as Snotteef mentioned, the games core concept changed from a game played amongst friends to one where army lists were maxed out, or 'cheese' if you will where no quarter was given in the interest of having a fun game. Everything was about the competition element, and there was no way that 2nd edition, with its RP-esque roots could survive. This might also explain why 3rd edition was recieved with open arms in the US compared to its release in the UK (I had that information on good authority from a member of the GW development staff, based stictly on customer feedback). Many players I know stopped playing 40k on the release of 3rd edition, because of this change in 'aspect'.

So, perhaps this is why this question always brings up such a heated discussion? Really, I think it comes down to what kind of game do you prefer. Are you the kind of player who likes more complex aspects of the rules, and a relative autonomy and freedom in their army choices, or do you prefer quickfire games which severely curtails your freedoms in the interests of a 'tournament friendly' and bulletproof rules system? (perhaps you can tell by that comment which I prefer) :cheese:

I could go on about the massive amount of things I miss from 2nd edition times. In fact, every time I play Necromunda it brings things home. Grenades bouncing off walls, characters set on fire, psychic battles, vehicles actually running people over.... the list goes on and on, all these things lost in time :rolleyes:

Ah well, everything changes, its just a matter of perspective whether this was a change for the good!

Commissar von Toussaint
24-12-2006, 02:56
As someone who has never wanted to go to a Grand Tournament, I have to say that the stats therefrom are of little interest to me - and demonstrate nothing about the utility of the game.

I do not buy RPGs on the basis of tournaments or contests played with them, nor did I ever buy conventional wargames (when such things were popular) based on who won what at Origins or GenCon.

My idea of a hobby is a set of rules that allows me the flexiblity to explore a variety of scenarios with decent game play and balance. 2nd ed. achieved this.

So pointing out that tactical squads weren't common at the US GT in 1998 proves nothing in regards to their utility in a normal game where the armies, terrain and mission is known.


1. you can still run away? okay, not at running speed, but if you MOVE instead of standing still, it still works aside from jump infantry and the like (which got you under 2nd ed, too).

So you can now run away as fast as the enemy advances? I thought you still move 6" and they get to move 6" and then assault 6" which means you are wasting your time if you try to run away. Not really an option. Back then, most units moved at similar speeds, so running kept chargers at arms length.

Indeed, can tanks outrun infantry yet?


2. granted, no option anymore (and IMO, it's better that way. grenades took ages to work through. okay, not to say they couldn't have been better implemented in new editions, but the way they work now is at least better than the way they worked in 2nd).

I guess results may vary. For us it goes pretty fast. Pick aiming point, roll to hit dice, resolve scatter and hits. Just like anything else with a template. Obviously the more shooting, the longer it takes - just like anything else.

The way people go on about how long things used to take, I wonder if my gaming group are simply supra-intelligent. We've memorized most of the datafaxes and weapon info and stuff that is supposed to take hours (grenades, HTH) doesn't. Go figure.


3. how bout "engage with bolters"? they are still good weapons and if you're not min/maxing, you should have a couple of them in the squad.

A couple won't work in most cases. And besides, the heavy weapons don't have them. So you're pretty much in Option 4. territory.


4. how bout engaging EFFECTIVELY with heavies? unlike 2nd, devs have a decent chance in CC and still beat the crap out of many units?

Not against dedicated assault troops, which is what I was referring to. If a stack of tyranids is about to hit an AT squad, it's dead, period.

In 2nd, it may actually survive. I recall a game years back where a lone lascannon was being charged by two termagants. They were 11 inches away - out of grenade range. The lascannon could only kill one. So he cut both down with his bolt pistol. It was cool and fluffy.

Griefbringer
24-12-2006, 19:08
A
So you can now run away as fast as the enemy advances? I thought you still move 6" and they get to move 6" and then assault 6" which means you are wasting your time if you try to run away. Not really an option. Back then, most units moved at similar speeds, so running kept chargers at arms length.

But the assault move only happens if they manage to make it close enough - if the fleeing fellows start running before the enemy gets within the 6" range then they will not be able to assault.

Asq_Dak
24-12-2006, 22:20
But at what distance do you want to stop shooting your heavy weapons? moving them off much before this would reduce the utility of the unit.

Anyway, I play 4th edition and it is fun, but I really liked 2nd edition so much more. Maybe it's the rose tinted nostalgia or the gaming atmosphere back then, but it just seem more gripping and cinematic back then!

The turn sequence of second was pretty much Warhammer Fantasy. The real differences were a) combat and b)vehicles.

Combat:

A lot of people seem to say this took a long time, but in my experience it didn't take that long. To be honest it is a little like playing Lord of the Rings combat, but with more depth than "highest number wins", but it doesn't take that long with 2 poeple that know what they are doing.

Vehicles:

Vehicle use was straight forward, and armour penetration isn't much more complicated than now. If you knew which weapons you would be using, then really there is only 1 more dice roll involved in vehicle damage.

Oh, and as for random effects, again if players knew what each item they used did before each game, I don't see how it would take that long to resolve. And remember, there were about half as many models on the table back then, so less to move, fight with and generally resolve.

Griefbringer
25-12-2006, 13:15
But at what distance do you want to stop shooting your heavy weapons? moving them off much before this would reduce the utility of the unit.


But the lack of running option in 4th edition means that the attackers will take a bit longer to reach the big guns, so it even outs.

Presume that the attackers will start somewhere between 25-29" away, in second edition (presuming movement 4" and running) it would take them three full turns to get within the charge range (8"). Similarly, with 4th edition (presuming the basic movement of 6") it would take them three turns to get within the charge range (12"). So in both cases it would be the same number of rounds (two or three, depending on who goes first) of shooting for big guns before they will need to start falling back.

Of course, in 2nd edition the situation would be further complicated by other options available to the attacker (higher/lower movement rate, choosing to move slower and shoot with basic weapons, throwing blind grenades etc.).

Commissar von Toussaint
25-12-2006, 21:30
But the lack of running option in 4th edition means that the attackers will take a bit longer to reach the big guns, so it even outs.

No, as you point out, it takes the same amount of time. The difference is the shooting is ineffective and once the attacker gets close, the defender has no choice but to stand and take it.

Not to mention you could move regular troops and still shoot at full range.

Running also was useful in terms of maneuver. You could run a heavy weapons squad get where you need to be, losing less time firing.

Of course it goes without saying that different movement rates was a really nice feature. It differentiated the armies nicely and added much more tactical depth.

Asq_Dak
28-12-2006, 08:50
Recently played a game of 2nd ed. 2,000pts. Started at 3:45 and finished at 5:10. Now, the set-up took quite a bit longer, but that's mainly because my opponent and I were getting familiar with the rules. We only managed to play 2 turns of a 4 turn game, but we were really only in the thick of the game for 1 hour, and a 2 hour game is very reasonable for a time scale. That's basically how long I remember these games taking anyway.

But in those 2 turns alone, so much happen that it is far more memorable and eventful than any 3rd or 4th edition game I've played. That is what was so great about 2nd ed. The game dynamics were so cool and gripping that you really did feel like you were involved in the battles. Loved it.

cyrus
28-12-2006, 11:25
I have played every edition of 40k and I say that the current rules are by far the best and most fun... First and second edition were fun for powerplayers and beards and although I had some really cool battles the 3rd edition was way better and far more balanced. Now I enjoying the 4rd edition which is as good as the 3rd...

Metaphorazine
28-12-2006, 13:26
After reading this thread, I so desperately want to play 2nd edition it's like a metallic taste in my mouth! After flicking through a WHFB rulebook, I was thinking to myself "Why can't 40k be like this? Armour modifiers, they make sense! Shooting modifiers, well that's a no-brainer! Must just be cause 40k is newer, they havn't had a chance to work the smart kind of stuff in yet!" Then I find out they had all that great sounding stuff, and got rid of it?! There is some anger... :mad:

Now GW's forced me to search eBay every day for as long as it takes to get the 2nd ed rulebook and codexes for mine and my bro's armies... :cries:

Griefbringer
28-12-2006, 16:09
Metaphorazine, you might also want to take a look at the Necromunda rules that are available as free download from GW nowadays - they are still pretty close to the 2nd edition rules in most aspects (though obviously missing things like vehicles and psychic powers).

Captain Micha
28-12-2006, 16:44
2nd edition 40k=scary. too much crap to roll for. really is. I do like being able to chuck grenades and them actually doing something that matters though.

2nd edition Ad&d =scary.

3.5 much much better thank god.

4th edition 40k. minus a few guns. thank god for it.

E-Arkham
28-12-2006, 17:12
The change from 2nd edition D&D to 3.0/3.5 is an example of making the rules faster, cleaner, and more efficient without losing all the rich complexities of the system. 2nd edition D&D was a Frankenstein mixture of a dozen years of tacked on rules. Remember having Strength scores of 18/75? Or "Saves vs Wands"? Many of the 2nd edition D&D rules were non-sensical holdovers from years past.

If anything, 3rd edition D&D made it easier to do the unusual, inventive and complex manuevers that had only hodge-podge rules (if those) in 2nd.

The change from 2nd edition 40K to 3rd lost a lot of the richness and complexity and replaced it with simplicity. Certainly it's faster, and certainly a lot of the things in 2nd were unnecessarily complex, but in 3rd and 4th many of the special options and rules are simply gone. Strategy cards. A rich psychic system. Variable movement rates. Etc.

As others have said, that doesn't make 4th edition 40K a bad game, or a game that's not great fun... but it definitely IS an entirely different game. Comparisons to changes made in D&D from 2nd to 3rd only highlights how much was carved out of 2nd edition 40K to make it fit in 3rd/4th.

Kep

VenrableOne
28-12-2006, 18:25
I really wonder what 3rd would have been like if we could have had discussions like this before it came out.

The internet wasn't there to let people in different parts of the world communicate their ideas or give feed back to GW.

nightgant98c
28-12-2006, 18:47
The net was there, it was just very small, and very slow.

Helicon_One
28-12-2006, 19:41
I really wonder what 3rd would have been like if we could have had discussions like this before it came out.

The internet wasn't there to let people in different parts of the world communicate their ideas or give feed back to GW.
3rd Ed would have been mostly the same, I think, but people's perceptions of 2nd Ed in comparison may well have been different. Pacific claims above that 40K taking off in the USA made 3rd Ed into a tourneycentric min-maxing exercise, but I'd say that the rise of the internet co-inciding with the release of 3rd Ed had more of an effect. When I played 2nd Ed the only sources of opinion were my local gaming group and White Dwarf, but by 1998 we could post on a forum like this one asking what anyone thought of a given unit or list and recieve hundreds of replies from people all around the world. In that environment, its not surprising that there was a trend towards optimising units and lists once there was the chance for a given unit/lists optimal configuration to be easily and instantly communicated around the world.

Tim

gorgon
29-12-2006, 13:58
Yeah. If players had min-maxed in 2nd like they do now in 4th, Eldar would have dominated to an even greater degree. There was a USENET forum and a 40K mailing list that were fairly active around 1996-1998, but the community was certainly smaller than it is today, and my (possibly faulty) memory says there wasn't as many "please build my army for me" postings going on.

But don't forget that the rise of tournament play had a lot to do with GW holding more tournaments! The first USGT was in 1997, nearly at the end of 2nd ed's lifespan. In 1998, there were either two or three GTs in the US. Then 3rd ed. was released, and GW started holding more and more tournaments to promote the new game. That's why I've always said it's hypocritical for GW designers to lament the tournament mindset, as GW had a lot to do with the growth of this mindset, and those players had a lot to do with the growth of the game.

Also, it was pretty much inevitable that GW was going to streamline to system to allow larger games. Player desires had little to do with it. They make their money by selling miniatures, and why promote "armies" consisting of 15-20 models when you can encourage (and sell) armies of 50+ models?

Kriegsherr
29-12-2006, 14:36
In the end, the 40k Community, or, to be more precise, the part of it that still feels that 2nd edition was superior to 3rd/4th, should do what any good community will do when their needs aren't met by THE company....

Come up with a 40k 2.5 Ruleset, that uses the best parts of 2nd edition and fixes the broken parts (like some strategy cards, the quite slow CC phase, the strange army selection rules and the overpowerdness of characters, monsters and vehicles for example), involve as many people all over the world as possible, and create something like a standart. Make it known to the world, distribute it over the internet, and start building up a community of players that know 40k 2.5 and are willing to play opponents with this ruleset.

It is a lot of work to do, and of course, its nothing "tourny-legal" (apart of tournys hold by independent organisators that explicitely allow this ruleset), and it wouldn't be allowed in GW stores.... well, at least until GW is forced to allow it due to the high demand from their player community.

This is at least how it works in the open source community. Even Big Companies like IBM now utilize and sell the community-developed OS Linux.


Anyway, I see 2nd edition with mixed feelings... There were many things broken and just plain stupid or insane, and it was in dire need of a re-edition. But there were also a lot of perfectly working things in it, that got thrown out with 3rd.... like the Armour save modifiers that only needed some reworking (maybe they generally wer too high), the to-hit modifiers that were logical and worked just as fine as the cover saves nowadays, The vehicle datasheets that weren't really complicated and never took much space in the codices, but just were a hell lot more fun than the generic tables in the rulebook now.

I have to say I'm not overly fond of 3rd or 4th edition either.... but that could have something to do with the army sizes I normally play with, they range from 400 to 750 points..... I don't want to paint and play with hundreds of minis, there are games better suited for this style of play.

a more detailed set of rules for small games of 40k are much more needed than this stupid codex apocalypse thingy for games over 3000 points :rolleyes:

IJW
29-12-2006, 14:58
Come up with a 40k 2.5 Ruleset, that uses the best parts of 2nd edition and fixes the broken parts (like some strategy cards, the quite slow CC phase, the strange army selection rules and the overpowerdness of characters, monsters and vehicles for example), involve as many people all over the world as possible, and create something like a standart. Make it known to the world, distribute it over the internet, and start building up a community of players that know 40k 2.5 and are willing to play opponents with this ruleset.
It's a lovely idea, but the 2nd ed ruleset is covered by copyright, making it illegal to distribute anything that is largely based on it. You could probably distribute a set of 'how to fix 2nd ed' instructions, but anything more than that is going to dump you in a heap of legal trouble.

Linux isn't a good comparison as it wasn't based on copyrighted material in the first place.

That said, it would be possible to do an 'open source' set of wargames rules, as long as they didn't use statlines etc. from 40k.

Fear is the mind killer
31-12-2006, 11:43
One thing that most folk have missed is that although 3rd and 4th lost so much and are nowhere near as complicated and memorable as 2nd ed. (Emperor rest its soul) you can just play 4th ed. and introduce optional rules to bring back the best bits of 2nd ed.

I wholeheartedly agree with making a 40k 2.5 ruleset. The question is, would it be best to make a large list of optional rules to represent different facets of 2nd ed. that were lost, or would it be best to just use a strict set of rules so that 40k 2.5 is more uniform and therefore more popular? Personally I'm in favour of making a thorough list of optional rules that can be added to 4th ed. as I know that most people don't use house rules made by other people so providing them with a list allows them to easily modify it to their needs.

pantera
31-12-2006, 17:56
Wow, reading through this thread has brought back so many memories (good and bad). Im really feeling that itch to bring out the old books (HA!!! the 3 books, oh man), and dedicate a day to those old school games. But really,
2nd edition, for all its glory, could be way too tedious most of the time. While I miss the psychic phase like you wouldn't believe (talk about cutting the nuts off the Eldar), still, it was things like that that dragged everything out. Grenade effects floating around the board, chart after chart after chart, vehicles being hit in different areas, walkers losing arms and legs. Oh, and then there was my buddies Hive Tyrant with 3 armour saves and regenerate. Youd shoot everything you could at it, knock it down one wound, then have that wound come back. So bloody frustrating. But at the same time thats what was so awesome... the realism. While I love 4th edition for being so streamlined, theres so many little things Id love for them to bring back. LIKE THROWING GRENADES!!!

Fear is the mind killer
31-12-2006, 18:25
How do you bring grenades back without making them too powerful do you reckon? When I played 2nd ed. we just forgot all about them and used the gun instead. Would you recommend doubling the cost of krak grenades or something to compensate for allowing so many troopers to have a S 6 ranged attack?

Kjell
31-12-2006, 18:33
How do you bring grenades back without making them too powerful do you reckon? When I played 2nd ed. we just forgot all about them and used the gun instead. Would you recommend doubling the cost of krak grenades or something to compensate for allowing so many troopers to have a S 6 ranged attack?

Well, "range" and "range"... It's a massive 12 inches. :p But yes, I imagine that certain new and interesting kinds of close assault squads would surface soon enough if krak grenades became throwable (even at -1 to hit).

Fear is the mind killer
31-12-2006, 18:56
It should probably be 6" range. When the space marine movie army list came out it included the option to throw grenades up to 6" and that list was deliberately designed to be overpowered.

pantera
31-12-2006, 21:06
Im no rules designer, so Ill leave that up to the infallible geniuses at GW (enter sarcasm). But really, 6" is more than enough. And that I guess is where the strategy comes in, do you throw a bunch of grenades, or shoot? And like Kjell said, have some negative modifier to throwing. Does only the sergeants/ leaders have grenades, or a couple "specialists". Theres lots of ways to work it, some better than others. But whatever, a man can dream, cant he?

Smokedog
01-01-2007, 14:25
I´m just on the proccess of finishing off a rules set between 2nd edition and 4th edition. Once completed (or at least in draft version) i will release it here. Basically I started off re-writting the ruleset from scratch. But it rasied to many issues.
In the end I am writting rules that will be compatible with the current codicies. I am treating it as an add-on to the current 40k rules, so you will need a 40k rule book to use them. Hopefully there are no legal issues....

Fear is the mind killer
01-01-2007, 16:02
Well I was planning on starting a thread in the rules development forum once I got my 2nd ed. books from my Dad's house sometime this month. I recommend that you just make 4th ed. versions of what was removed during the transition from 2nd to 3rd ed., as that appears to be what people are asking for, and then the thread can be used to modify the rules. Otherwise I'll do it in a month or so.

Smokedog
09-01-2007, 11:23
Just a quick update:

The rules should be availble later this week, friday (12). I'll be putting them on the rules dev forum for anyone who is interested....

cherio!

Ps. I need playtesters to break them / review them.

Carlos
09-01-2007, 15:55
By 1998 2nd Edition had gone from a relatively well designed game into a horrible monstrousity of rules, WD cut outs, multiple cards and suchlike. It got far too bloated.

Trust me, there are a LOT of gamers on here who say 2nd edition was the best but is wasnt at all, and if we transplanted our 4th edition armies to 2nd edition none of them would work.

gLOBS
09-01-2007, 16:33
It takes 4-5 games of fourth edition to equal the good stories and fun factor I had with 1 game of 2nd.

VenrableOne
09-01-2007, 18:32
By 1998 2nd Edition had gone from a relatively well designed game into a horrible monstrousity of rules, WD cut outs, multiple cards and suchlike. It got far too bloated.

Then what was to stop them from cleaning it up? Instead they threw the baby out with the bath water.

Now we have a horrible monstrosity of rules that aren't balanced and inconsistent from day one.

Permanganate
09-01-2007, 18:46
It takes 4-5 games of fourth edition to equal the good stories and fun factor I had with 1 game of 2nd.

...probably because 2nd Ed took 4-5x as long to play. I was shocked when 3rd Ed came out ("No armor modifiers? My CC parries are gone? Get-you-by lists? Argh! etc etc") but eventually I realized that 2nd Ed had been a totally overcomplicated mess. 3rd Ed was actually quite good, except for rhino rushing and an overemphasis on close combat; it did mostly the same kinds of things as 2nd, but faster and easier.