Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up? I'm gonna hafta go back and copy the links to a bunch of these different threads o I can just paste them into the new ones as they come up so we all dont have to retype the same conversation over again each time and save us all the time and aggravation.
Each edition has good and bad points. I like RT because its the edition that got me into the game.

I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

I loved save modifiers, but I always thought they were all about a point too high. Basic weapons should have had Save Mod 0, Heavy Botlers, SM -1, etc. Same for assault, start at S5 with -1 save instead of S4.

Cool system, but when even lasguns are reducing Space Marine armor to a 4+, it was a bit much.

The homebrew 40k I work on from time to time uses a modified version of it.

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. Just because of nostalia's sake and because theat was when we were introduced to the fluff and background and it was still new and wonderfull to us without being spoiled by the "edition before was better complaints" because we never played the earlier edition to care.
After that, it all comes down to opinionand preferences.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:
Wow. People really think 2nd edition was "simpler" or "quicker"? You had to roll on random tables for pretty much everything (vehicle damage in particular was a chore). Many weapons (vortex 'nades, for instance) created persistent effects that had to be determined once per turn. And don't get me started on "sustained fire" and its dedicated set of die. Really, I think we're romanticising 2nd edition a bit too much.

If there was one thing that 2nd Edition was not, it was quick.

Holistically a better game than 3+ Edition? Easily. But quicker, absolutely not. Psychics alone were a huge time sink. To the point that most tournaments I remember banned psyker characters out of the interests of time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
But 2nd ed had worse balance between the haves and have-nots than any edition since.

Yeah, but that was entirely an external problem (Codex Books) rather than an internal problem (the rulese).

2nd Edition needed an overhaul. What it got was completely thrown out and replaced with 3rd Hammer 40K, which just suffers from horrific internal imbalance, and has dragged down every subsequent edition with it.

The problem with 2nd Edition was not understanding the ramifications of all the wacky stuff that had come out of Rogue Trader. A 2.5th Edition could have simply introduced better balanced Codex books and toned down Herohammer with more reasonable statlines. 3rd Edition's entire ruleset ensured that there'd never even be a potential for balance because of its wonky mechanics. Ever wondered why every edition it's either the shooty armies or the choppy armies complaining that they've been nerfed? That's because of 3rd Edition. 2nd Edition didn't have any choppy armies. Some units were choppy, but they had to be used smartly, and every army had the ability to shoot, which meant the game wasn't trying to balance one army using medieval tactics and one using sci-fi tactics.

I can't be objective about 2nd because I lost every match. I'll be honest about it.

 EVIL INC wrote:
LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up?

This is the same thread as the 'last time' it came up... It just sat for a little while with no replies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. .

To some degree, yes. I enjoyed the hell out of 2nd edition... but 5th is still my favourite.

 insaniak wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
LOL, its been what? A whole week since the last time this subject came up?

This is the same thread as the 'last time' it came up... It just sat for a little while with no replies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Exactly, I think you will find that most players will have a special place for the edition they started in. .

To some degree, yes. I enjoyed the hell out of 2nd edition... but 5th is still my favourite.

Same here, I have more fond memories of 2nd (even though I started in RT) but I have to say that 5th was the best in terms of actual fun gameplay.

yeah, i posted this thread ages ago but it is really interesting to hear peoples ideas and i am glad i has gained so much momentum and has encouraged discussion (especially about 2nd and 7th) even though it did spend about 4 days with no comments.

I began in 4th, 5th is my favourite.

The heroes and psychics were a good bit of the downside of 2nd edition. Heroes were too powerful and the psychic phase was slow and cumbersome.

But the main basis of the rules were a good set of bones. They also worked great in Necromunda and Gorkamorka. I always thought 2nd ed. needed polishing, rather than an overhaul. Change how psykers worked, and redo the bloated stats and rules governing vehicles, and that would have made a great start.

Hell, lots of the main rules for 3rd edition on would have worked in 2nd, as far as I can tell.

definitely Think 2nd only needed re doing not being replaced by 3rd. i loved playing 3rd for small battles on the old style 2' by 2' board. 9i play sm and i usually played eldar)

Rogue Trader. It was more like an RPG, and all the tabletop rules and lists were custom-made

Good times.

i do admit rogue trader was fun, it had a lot more personality than the newer editions

Swimsuit, best by far

what do you mean "swimsuit" i am not familiar with it

 the clone wrote:
what do you mean "swimsuit" i am not familiar with it

As in "swimsuit edition"...

Well played there...

ok

 docdoom77 wrote:

 More Dakka wrote:
I started in 2nd and it still has a special place in my heart. I've been getting friends who started in 3rd or later to pick it up and give it a go.

Before anyone makes the normal quip about how long close combats take, yes, I know, but I actually found them to be pretty fun, compared to the pseudo fantasy version that appeared in 3rd.

If anyone complains about marines not being durable now, consider that they used to get their armor save modified by -1 to -5

By the same extension Terminators we freaking super durable. No iteration of Terminators have ever felt as strong as they did in 2nd.

I loved save modifiers, but I always thought they were all about a point too high. Basic weapons should have had Save Mod 0, Heavy Botlers, SM -1, etc. Same for assault, start at S5 with -1 save instead of S4.

Cool system, but when even lasguns are reducing Space Marine armor to a 4+, it was a bit much.

The homebrew 40k I work on from time to time uses a modified version of it.

The skirmish level I'm working on uses a combination AP and Save mod system where if the AP is equal or better, the save is negated, and if the save is better than the AP, then it is modified (by certain weapons). This cuts down on the effect that both systems have by themselves. The 2nd Edition version needlessly gimped heavily armored troops by reducing their saves from anything stronger than an autogun, but the subsequent system created bizarre inequities in the meta.

I take a lot of issue with 6th and 7th because of just how much turn 1 offense there is. Drop pod assaults, grey knights and deathwing turn 1 deep strikes, FMC's that start on the ground and suddenly are in front of your deployment zone, along with any of the 500000 guns that can reach any of your guys from the spot they deployed...reserves are easy to get and easy to get buffs to make them even easier to get, so if turn 1 wasn't insane, turn 2 is.

Games basically go like this now:
T1: MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS everywhere
T2: more explosions and deaths
T3: damaged units get close to each other and start smacking each other. Most decent players should be able to call the game result here correctly with 80ish % accuracy.
T4: There are a few tiny remnants of squads here and there.
T5: Someone gets tabled because of the massive damage output of everyone.

The games I used to experience (and wish they were still here) were like this:
T1: Units maneuver into better position, a few expensive long range heavy weapons may fire, but not move.
T2: Units maneuver more, assaulters make approaches, heavier shooting happens.
T3: The battle gets into full swing, similar to what turn 1 is nowadays.
T4: more of t3 with whittled down armies
T5: battle is pretty much settled, and objectives win the day.

We see a ton of tabling in 7e in our group. I barely ever saw any in like...3e. The only ones I can remember was when I was beating up on my necron buddy and caused his army to phase out right before the end of the game.

You have had turn one offense in all editions. Am I the only one to remember VDR in 2nd edition? We had a guy who had 4 rhinos, each with a cyclone missile launcher who would saturate his opponent's entire deployment zone by rolling them forward and firing off all of their missiles on turn one.
theissue isnt turn one offence or the edition it is. It is a basic game mechanic that has existed from the start. If you played the old epic, you would have seen the mechanic of taking turns activating units so that each turn was more of a tactical give and take instead of one player sitting around "taking it".

5th, oh god 5th. 5h ed was like an attractive bride and 7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell with a newly developed speech impediment and the self awareness of a blind kitten.

 Crablezworth wrote:
7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell

Yeah, well, real games have curves!

 Blacksails wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
7th ed is her years later, post wedding, bloated as hell

Yeah, well, real games have curves!

lol, made me think of this. In this case 5th ed would be to the left lol

 EVIL INC wrote:
You have had turn one offense in all editions. Am I the only one to remember VDR in 2nd edition? .

The Vehicle Design Rules were introduced in 3rd ed. 2nd ed just had a list of points costs to switch weapons around on vehicles, which nobody really used, from my experience.

My bad. got 2nd and 3rd confused. From what I saw, VDR was widely used for just the sort of shenanigans I described. I also saw a LOT of players use it to make oddball creations when their conversion urges got the best of them.
Either way, it doesnt change the fact that all of the editions had the same turn one issue.
I still feel that something along the lines of the old epic turn mechanic would be better.

It's an issue, but one that can be somewhat mitigated just by putting more terrain on the board.


Throughout the last 20 years, I've found that the vast majority of complaints about how game-breaking it is if your opponent gets first turn have come from people playing all of their games on Planet Bowling Ball.

I totally agree with you on that. It would help with that issue. That same answer would also go a long way towards making the close combat unit complaints better. Like with that though, it would help but not be a total answer.
I prefer themed set ups but they will sometimes lead towards extremes of terrain. air fields or city streets. The trade off of actions would hopefully alleviate that issue.
Of course, these sorts of things are pipe dreams.

 insaniak wrote:
It's an issue, but one that can be somewhat mitigated just by putting more terrain on the board.


Throughout the last 20 years, I've found that the vast majority of complaints about how game-breaking it is if your opponent gets first turn have come from people playing all of their games on Planet Bowling Ball.

Well, the be fair, this is something of an effect of 3rdHammer 40K and the rise of "melee armies" and "shooty armies". Back when everyone could shoot, people liked terrain. Now the shooty player wants no terrain to get in the way of his shooting because it would give an advantage to his opponent who plays a fighty army.

I agree with veteran sergeant there, i do space marines and equip them with loads of heavy weapons and generally used to obliterate my friends who played orks as the cover wasn't such an issue but now the orks just hide behind cover and out a squad at a time to get killed until eventually one of his squads gets into close combat and then he takes all his troops out of cover and goes for the weak points. not a bad strategy in itself but i find it annoying

it does need to be noted that in BOTH players get to put terrain on the table. There are varieties and types that can be used. if here is not enough "big stuff" to put on the table, feel free to model up some yourself to add to the collection.
of course, in tourneys, you dont always have that option but you usually get to pick a table both players can agree to which helps give both players a say even then.
Its something that sadly most players take for granted. they are so worried about the rules and the lists, models, conversions, edition and so forth that they simply overlook the element of terrain (and the tactics and strategies that go with it) and then blame one of the other factors when they lose. Those ho are able to effectively make use of it will find their win ratio improve drastically.