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.

Just some thoughts for folks from a guy who has played through every single system so far, inspired by the latest rash of Second Edition Love and Hate. This is personal observation not dictation;

Rogue Trader
Borderline RP style based Squad Wargame Ruleset (Flawed due to RP style origins) Too much detail, allowed abuse. This to one point, is the origins for Inquisitor. Highly detailed, but cannot go beyond more then 40 miniatures, fun factor plummets quickly after that.

Second Edition
Streamline Fully Realised Squad Ruleset (Flawed due to ease of abuse, as it allowed a massive variety)
Not an Army wargame 'As Advertised'. Required like minded players to gain the best of it. Ended up being the basis of Necromunda, which is.. a Squad level game and thus, immense fun. Not rocket science TBH.

Third Edition
First true Army Scale Wargame Ruleset, removed large swathes of detail from rules to ensure ease of mass movement, unit play etc. Often commented Squads were now in fact, troopers with Multiple Wounds. Which, essentially is a fair description.

Fourth/Fifth Edition
Further Refined Army Scale Ruleset, 'redundant details' cleaned up. Oddities of Broad Sweeping Rulings require fixes, in general, a host of odd rules appear. However, very strong in producing massive scale games.

Apocalypse
Addon to later editions, further increasing scale but reducing complexity of unit play to allow the sheer scale.

Planetstrike
Following current trends, I don't think I need to detail what to expect here.


So, based on all the above, what do you see? Well, for one thing, detailed rules needed only a few miniatures. But Rocked, Hard. (Necromunda) However, this does not promote sales. Ergo, create a ruleset that successfully plays large forces, however, detail has to be removed to speed up gameplay and complexity dropped.

It is no surprise that as player age groups dropped, so did complexity. It expands market, allows folks to buy plenty of stuff and utilise it. Win for All. Gamers and Producer.

Overall? What you have here is chalk and cheese, some folks thoroughly enjoy detailed intense squad games, others.. large battlefields.

Each system has flaws and fun, it is up to you the player to push aside the oddball and bizarre rulings to increase your own fun. This depends alot on your player group etc. Also, competitive gamers are very interested in potential of lists and by default, often abuse systems to max out benefit, as their playing style.

No system is the best, however, the enjoyment of detail and the often return of squad level games irks the fact, Second edition was a good gaming system that refined an over fed Rogue Trader ruleset, it was a framework within you built a game. All you grievances can be pushed aside by agreement, power characters banned, and Overwatch was easily overcome with some tact. Detail was there to account for scenario play through to just straight shoot-ups.

Of all the systems I have played in 20 years? Second Edition had the mix almost right. One of the most successful spin offs of all time (Necromunda) is the son of this game. We're all still enjoying it through =I=Munda.

Love or hate, it was a good basis for some of the best gaming I have ever had in 40k. Ever since 3rd edition, fun factor for me personally? Has dropped lower and lower as I found myself restricted and abiding odd rulings. Ergo, I like some level complexity and freedom. So naturally, I dislike the latest iterations of 40k whilst I recognise it rocks for others.

It's ultimately, all just a preference.

Enjoy what you like, tweak it how you want. Just don't deem others mad because they enjoy something you think flawed as it didn't meet your requirements openly.

~ Tael.

I think it's odd that you lump 4th ed and 5th ed together, when IMO 5th ed has added a welcome degree of complexity back to the game, while still allowing "streamlined" play.

Examples:

Running.
Going to Ground.
More detailed rules for ruins and buildings.
Morale checks at unusual times due to 25% casualties in any phase.
Wound allocation rules that prevent sergeants and special weapon troopers from being protected from enemy fire by a magical force field.

My basis was the latest is really a progressive evolution of the prior. The shift from 2nd to 3rd was much more pronounced for example. Ultimately, its the impression the rule set has made on me.

It is interesting you say there is a 'return' to complexity. Not suggesting it is better based on the iteration of ruleset present, but possibly an acknowledgement gamers want more from their system?

cheers!
~ Tael.

I would like to sig that. Pity I can't. Thanks tael, there is absolutely no little detail of what you said that I didn't agree with.

Because although your post claims to be an unbiased view of all the editions... it's not. Your comments about 3rd through 5th edition reveal that you don't really have the knowledge required to compare 2nd ed with the later editions, and this is really just another "2nd ed was great!!!" posts.

What I said was a "welcome degree of complexity." Complexity and randomness can make a game more "fun" for me, but to an extent. 3rd was too far a swing to bland-ness.

I have to say that overall 5th is my favourite system so far, despite rules holes created due to codex shift.

RT was, as already said, almost an RPG and so could not be an 'army' game.

2nd ed, while fun, was too complex to use armies without giving up a weekend to play 2000 pts, It relied on aplayer 'honour code' to actually work and generally the game choked on its ruleset. (necro however was and still is great, still dont have that esher plasma gunner though *sigh*) (wont bang on about all of the greatness of 2nd as its already been done to death)

As far as I'm aware there is not a single person out there that considers 3rd ed anything but the worst edition of the game. It was to simple and drove me off of 40k, switched to fantasy for most of it, the codexes were bland, the rules were bland and it was just generally a dull game.

4th (3.5th) was a marked improvement on third, with some complexity coming back, introduction of USR making units unique while adhering to a basic ruleset, also brought a few of the better things from 3rdedcity fight into the main game, defined cover (although I was not a fan of the system) and generally revived the game a bit.

5th followed the trend of 4th and added many rules to increase complexity bwithout slowing down the game, also brought about IMO some true codex diversity, going by the three true 5th ed codexes (Daemons, SM and IG, 4 if you count orks) while each follows the rules, they all have thier own quirks which change them towards the feel of thier army, a trend which I think will continue and as more 5th ed codexes come out The game will also improve. It is the interaction between the complexity of the 5th ed ruleset, combined with each codexes unique way of breaking said rules (Drop pod assault, orders, daemonic deployement etc.) that makes 5th work and so 40k work for the first time again IMO since 2nd.

yes this kinda makes me sound biased towards 5th, but thats because I am, I like it more than 3rd and 4th, (about the same as second), and I cant really comment on RT as I only played it once.

I would like to sig that. Pity I can't.

Thanks Paul, appreciated

Because although your post claims to be an unbiased view of all the editions... it's not.

Sure I am bias, the whole post was a personal point of view and a statement system choice is about Preference, refer the Title of the thread. I don't think I'm hiding my fondness of the Second Edition and Necromunda rule sets, I just intend to put across why I like it, how others may too and explain my experience over time. In doing so, offer a reason for just accepting 'different dice rolls for different folks'.

I have to say that overall 5th is my favourite system so far, despite rules holes created due to codex shift.

I do like Sirius' post as it captures this idea, from the other side. Enjoying 5th over previous editions. We even share similar conclusions! hah!.. yet what I saw one way, Sirius found to be bonuses.

thanks,
~ Tael.

I've played all five.

The game rocks, even if some of the decision making process behind the changes is wacked. I blame that on the bean counters, they are the reason the game takes it on the chin.

I don't compair these games at all, seeing as I've played this long, and am still playing. Each and every edition sucked when they first started out, but then you get used to playing, and they grudgingly fall into your game groups psych. If something trully doesn't fit, it is eventully dumped or changed.

If you compair GW's game system to what was out at the time, Rogue Trader was awsome. I remember walking in and seeing my first land raider model, and squad box of marines, and saying "What the hell is that?"
My first army was a box of sqats a couple of mole morters and a thudd guns. THAT stuff was hellarious, HOW can you take them seriously?

I don't see your purpose for ranking out the game, seeing as you are supposed to think you know about it.

All I keep seeing is someone starting conversations that are biased to thier point of view and when not, they decide they want to add a little strawman to the mix. If the game sucked that bad, why didn't you fix it so it unsucked?

This game has been fun for the whole ride through. I don't regret playing any of them, and i'm genuinly sorry for you for not having a group that you could of had a better time with.

Sure some of the rules sucked, but then you and your gang decided to either not use them, or modified them so that the game was playable, and it gave you room to grow.

I really find it funny that people put 5th edition on a pedistal, when the whole game is now GIVEN to you on a platter, without so much as effort one in using your own imagination to do anything with. Jervis and company have given you everything but the win on the games now.

Back throughout the game, we actually had to build things and make things up as we went along. That was where most of the fun came in for me, seeing that the game has always been flawed, and it took creativity to work through the kinks.

Just because your games of RT, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition sucked doesn't mean the rest of ours did. YOU can put on the gak colored glasses, and cry about how much the game sucked but I actully had fun when we played back when it counted.

5th is your favorite until 6th comes out.

I had tons of fun with 2nd... doesn't mean that the rules weren't a mess that had to be "FAQ'd" in White Dwarf every month. I can't remember how many times (because it was a lot) that a rules debate had to be answered with "didn't you see WD 3 months ago?" Also... game balance was non-existent. Sure, if you like playing the same 3 or 4 guys over and over again game balance isn't that important. If you actually like playing against a diverse group of players and armies is sure as hell is.

3rd ed... well, I honestly didn't spend as much time with it as the other editions... I can honestly say I lost interest.

4th ed brought me back into the game. The rules still caused plenty of "WTF" moments... especially when you looked at the codices, but I got into tournament gaming in 4th ed... and generally things seemed pretty OK.

5th ed has refined some of what 4th ed was trying to do, changed the metagame quite a bit, kicking your opponent's butt in CC is now more important than just having a lot more guys is, etc. It's added some complexity that I like, and the Codices are adding elements to each army that "break the rules" to an extent, making the game more interesting too, despite leading to some... debate (KFF anyone? God of War?).

5th ed is not "perfect." No edition of 40k has been, or has even been close, really, but I think that 5th is as close as we've gotten, and honestly I've had way more fun with 5th ed than I can remember ever having before in 40k.

I'll agree with many others' sentiments that 2nd ed rules worked very, very well with Necromunda. Honestly, I still think it's the best game that GW has made, even though the expansion set threw game balance to the sharks.

But for a larger scale "war game" 5th ed is the closest they've come to ideal.

Sure, 6th may be my favorite when it comes out, but it may not be either.

Yah this is more the meat I'm talking about, really interesting reading everyone's thoughts on each iteration. What you liked, disliked about it through experience rather than specifics. If anything, it's more apparent there's agreement over the jarring third edition brought about when it landed.

I remember walking in and seeing my first land raider model, and squad box of marines, and saying "What the hell is that?"

haha For me? it was a Rhino and two squads of Space Wolves verse some ramshackle Space Orks.

I don't see your purpose for ranking out the game, seeing as you are supposed to think you know about it.

Wasn't ranking, just listing my thoughts from my perspective. I've played all the systems, but to know them like some gamers do? not even close. I'm talking from a game players POV, initial reaction and playability for me. Which is why the 'Preference' in the title.

and i'm genuinly sorry for you for not having a group that you could of had a better time with.

No need man, gaming groups came and went as I moved about internationally in recent times, also, the later editions developed more competitive players in my experience, so themed games fell further to the side. If anything, that's where I miss a bunch of gaming pals.

Back throughout the game, we actually had to build things and make things up as we went along.

Anyone recall the RT era Shampoo Bottle grav-Tank? Phear Me.... (No seriously, this was an actual example in the ruleset)

if you like playing the same 3 or 4 guys over and over again game balance isn't that important. If you actually like playing against a diverse group of players and armies is sure as hell is.

Classic example of gaming group verse gaming competitively. Such a true comment of any editions really.

but I got into tournament gaming in 4th ed... and generally things seemed pretty OK.

The later streamlining and refinements definitely lend better to tournament gamers more than previous editions (1st/2nd) definitely not debate there from me.

Though FAQ's are a syndrome of 40k it seems, throughout history, its an easy doubt that they will eventually go away. Hundreds of pages of rules, there will always clarifications. I think the transitional stage of 4th - 5th and all the codex malarky is really causing a stink. Considering some folks enjoy their tournaments, I figure hair loss products may see a spike in sales.

3rd ed... well, I honestly didn't spend as much time with it as the other editions... I can honestly say I lost interest.

I hear you, it almost broke the camels back for me it was so divergent from what I had essentially, grown up playing.

That was a good read, thanks for your thoughts guys, excuse the quote-athon, but just wanted to ensure folks knew where I was commenting
Tael.

Shas'El Tael wrote:
Anyone recall the RT era Shampoo Bottle grav-Tank? Phear Me.... (No seriously, this was an actual example in the ruleset)

I remember the deodorant grav-tank, was there another? I can just imagine an entire army of hygiene products...

Who is everybody having trouble playing against that they thought a 2,000 point 2nd edition battle took an entire weekend? It seems to me that unless your opponent was a total dick, games averaged about 1 1/2 hours per 1,000 points. Of course, it seems that a couple of 'house rules' I came up with made things go much smoother.
#1: dump the stupid 2nd edition close combat system and instead do it just like it's done in Warhammer Fantasy.
#2: The much superior predecessor to 5th edition wound allocation. After all rolls to hit and wound and armor saves are made, roll 1D6 and count over than many, removing every so many models as a casualty until you run out of damage or models in the unit. If anybody has a better save or higher T, two wounds must be allocated to remove them as a casualty.
I agree that some streamlining was needed, but they went way too far. My preferred rules set would be second edition with fourth edition codexes, but with AP replaced with modifiers, separate field saves replacing 'invulnerable' saves (!?!) and a return to vehicle datafaxes.

warpcrafter wrote:
I agree that some streamlining was needed, but they went way too far. My preferred rules set would be second edition with fourth edition codexes, but with AP replaced with modifiers, separate field saves replacing 'invulnerable' saves (!?!) and a return to vehicle datafaxes.

We working on some house rules for our gaming group to do something very similar to this. We are replacing the 2nd ed close combat rules and Psychic phase with the current assault and psychic rules. So far playtesting has been very favorable.

Sounds interesting. Unfortunately, Orks never did get a 4th edition codex, with loads of Warboss/Big mek/Painboss/Warphead wargear and extras for each Klan.
Did I mention that I really miss sustained fire dice?

After playing all editions I really think 5th is more tactical than any edition so far and relies more on tactics of armies than the armie itself just winning.

warpcrafter wrote:Sounds interesting. Unfortunately, Orks never did get a 4th edition codex, with loads of Warboss/Big mek/Painboss/Warphead wargear and extras for each Klan.

We're actually just using the most current codex for each army. So Orks won't be hurting in our group!

Hollismason wrote:After playing all editions I really think 5th is more tactical than any edition so far and relies more on tactics of armies than the armie itself just winning.

While I agree that 5th is much more tactical than the other streamlined editions (3rd and 4th); I would argue that 2nd ed with two reasonable opponents is the most tactical of all editions of 40K.

I remember the deodorant grav-tank, was there another? I can just imagine an entire army of hygiene products...

Deodorant grav-tank.. you're right, hahah. Hygeine product army? Make a clean sweep of the opposition I tell yah.. ba-boom-tis (groaannn)

We working on some house rules for our gaming group to do something very similar to this. We are replacing the 2nd ed close combat rules and Psychic phase with the current assault and psychic rules. So far playtesting has been very favorable.

Curious idea.. I think I'll drag out my old copy of Dark Millennia and compare it.

Hollismason wrote:After playing all editions I really think 5th is more tactical than any edition so far and relies more on tactics of armies than the armie itself just winning.

While I agree that 5th is much more tactical than the other streamlined editions (3rd and 4th); I would argue that 2nd ed with two reasonable opponents is the most tactical of all editions of 40K.

Yah, the key points here is that the later editions operate as an Army, whilst previous were more Squad/Skirmish level.

Cool to log on this morning to these posts, I'm going to check out this recommended phase switch out. I think the psychic replacement idea has legs..

So..here's a question, what to you, has been the most significant ruling change over time?

I could cop out and moan about Grenades, as per my old motto among friends - 'If in doubt, Grenade yourself out" but, I feel it was cover saves. The sudden, almost over simplification of cover save rulings almost seemed to make 'cover' a redundant principle in the game at the time.


thanks!
Tael.

For me I would have to say the Vehicles rules have been the most significant change IMO, and not for the best. Vehicles should be able to move and fire all of their weapons; the current rules make most tanks into pillboxes.

Idiotic pillboxes. Why does my sponson gunner - someone who's there to defend the tank - have to fire at the same thing the turret sees? Why does my sponson have to not fire at something he can see because he can't see what the turret is shooting at?

First person who says that it's to make the rules "easier" or "clearer" should slap themselves in the mouth.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Idiotic pillboxes. Why does my sponson gunner - someone who's there to defend the tank - have to fire at the same thing the turret sees? Why does my sponson have to not fire at something he can see because he can't see what the turret is shooting at?

First person who says that it's to make the rules "easier" or "clearer" should slap themselves in the mouth.

It's just proof that the crystal meth epidemic has reached the British Isle. I would volunteer to do the slapping, but I really don't want carpal tunnel syndrome on top of all my other maladies.

I liked 3rd almost liked 4th and don't care much for 5th

2E - I played very little, although this is where I started. I completely agree that 2E is a Squad game, not an Army game, which is why it's awesome for Necro. It is irritating that the entire objective of "army" building degenerated into finding some exploit to cheese out.

3E - this is where I really started playing a *lot*, multiple games weekly. Amazingly "army"-oriented but playing smooth(er) and clean(er). Until the Codices and Trial Rules and Experimental Rules made utter hash of things. This version benefitted and suffered from the system reset in largely equal measure.

4E - this is where I started slowing down due to other life priorities taking away gaming time and spending cash. It was nice that GW finally figured out more-or-less what the basic ruleset should do, but I was not at all happy with the Codex silliness - clearly the very concept of "balance" no longer existed whatsoever.

5E - finally, GW gets the rules straightened out and cleaned up to support "large army" / Tournament gaming. I like that Troops finally have meaning and Objectives are important, but I'm not entirely happy with the newest Codices during the transition from 4E to 5E, but don't care as I don't do tournament gaming. Still, at least Codices each start to have some kind of distinctive theme.

Apoc - this is an awesome take that builds off 5E. It is fun and balanced and themed without actually needing hard controls. It is bizarre and weird, but it works because we're finally back to cooperative scenario-based gaming. The Datasheets are pure evil, as they encourage buying insane amounts of stuff that can only really be played in Apoc.


Overall, I'm happy with Apoc (5E).

I'm very much looking forward to 6E and a consolidated Apoc 2.

For me I would have to say the Vehicles rules have been the most significant change IMO, and not for the best. Vehicles should be able to move and fire all of their weapons; the current rules make most tanks into pillboxes.

Idiotic pillboxes. Why does my sponson gunner - someone who's there to defend the tank - have to fire at the same thing the turret sees? Why does my sponson have to not fire at something he can see because he can't see what the turret is shooting at?

I'll agree there. Vehicles have never been a major to me as I enjoyed getting tactical with the troops, hence cover saves really got in my craw. But, your observations are very much the kind of lack complexity that began to gnaw at me as 40k progressed to involve larger formations/battles.

I always recall that gut feeling when a Leman Russ or a Preadtor trundled onto the table.. hell.. a Grav Tank even.. (thinks back to an great fire fight between GT and entrenched IG Heavies..)

It is bizarre and weird, but it works because we're finally back to cooperative scenario-based gaming

Which really is the way to wargame really, setup a scenario and try to make your mate eat it with half his number in forces.

I enjoyed a season of campaign games, where success and loss affected what you could draw on significantly, for future battles. Let alone strategic outmanoeuvring on the map.

5E - finally, GW gets the rules straightened out and cleaned up to support "large army" / Tournament gaming. I like that Troops finally have meaning and Objectives are important, but I'm not entirely happy with the newest Codices during the transition from 4E to 5E

Pretty much one way to describe my own thoughts too. I miss my ground pounders being important in this manner.


Q. So, would you guys follow a notion that 40k is possibly falling on it's own power sword by trying to be too clever in it's streamlined 'simplicity'?


~ Tael

Tael wrote:Q. So, would you guys follow a notion that 40k is possibly falling on it's own power sword by trying to be too clever in it's streamlined 'simplicity'?

No.

I started at the end of 2nd Ed. General likes and dislikes of each.

2nd : I liked the save mods much better than the later AC simplification but way too many time consuming things... (Anyone for frag grenade tossing scatters???)

3rd: Demi-company level. Rhino-rush stupidity. Tanks are pillboxes.

4th: Best vehicle rule set by far but nerfed troop transports too much. Tanks were actually mobile.

5th: Emphasis on troops. Too overbalanced to CC making many army builds worthless. Upped tread tank survival, nerfed grav tank survival. Back to pillbox tanks.

If I had to have a preference, I would like 4th edition CC with 5th edition troops to hold objectives. For vehicles, I would like the grav vehicles to have better survivability and non-storm bolter only defensive weapons. (When playing eldar it seems dumb to be playing a falcon that costs 130 pts minimum, has less survivability than a 85pt predator and can only move slower than troops on foot to fire all weapons.) The CC dislike of 5th is the one round lethality of CC. Numbers of crap should count for something and right now it doesn't. 30 gaunts should be disgusting to face, now it is a recipe for disaster to play bad HTH units. ( I really love looking at 5th edition Tau lists where the debate is playing 2 or 3 units of troops that the tactic is to hide the cows in the transport all game because a fire warrior in 5th ed can't dare to be on the board because they insta-die in HTH.)

These are core rule comments. My real dislike of 5th edition is not the core rules though, it is 5th ed codexes... Cheap, one-dimensional codexes. (i.e. Show you 25 choices to make your army but after 15 minute read you identify only 1 or 2 over powered/underpriced idiot choice in each army slot type that makes sense.) The slow release of codexes leaving unbalanced unplayable armies - new codex making 3+ old codexes junk and knowing it will be at best 3 years before some of them will ever get updated. I also dislike the characters altering the army mentality of the new codexes... I liked it better when you knew Dark Angel armies were one flavor, Bloods another... not is Pedro leading the Ultramarines or is it Vulkan....

Shas'El Tael wrote:[Q. So, would you guys follow a notion that 40k is possibly falling on it's own power sword by trying to be too clever in it's streamlined 'simplicity'?

Nah. The simplicity and streamlining is great for Tournaments and pick-ups, and allows for Apoc to build off more easily.

Fifth Edition is a different game from Second. It's similar to third and fourth, which are also different. They just share the same name. It's like the Star Wars franchise, some of the characters stay, but it's different films.

Different games appeal to different people. Some like Advanced Squad Leader. I don't.

Every time someone accuses GW of altering the rules to sell more models, I think that:
1) It's partially true, but
2) People want to play bigger scale games (more models), so by taking the game 'in that direction', it is just building on how people are playing the game anyway.

So, while GW may change things a bit in an attempt to sell more models, if people weren't already going in that direction, it wouldn't work.

I would tend to agree with all posted, I put the question up to rile up some interesting responses. It's been good to get some solid debate on the pros, cons and downright mix ups throughout 40k's history.

Been great hearing people's thoughts on the issue.. spanning a couple of decades of gaming in the running too

best!
~ Tael.

Hi all.
GW may be 'streamlining' the rules so people can use more and more minatures in games of 40k.
But simplification just occurs in 40k game play.
The actual rules are very complicated for what they actualy achive. (Comparativley.)

My favorite edition of 40k was Andy Chambers rewrite that didnt get accepted by GW corperate managment.(It got developed at another company.)

All the way through 40k editions the game play has been comprimised by marketing conciderations.
And coupled with GW dev teams ability to take a great concept and totaly mess up the imlementation in the game .....

I would *love* to see GW reintroduce a squad based game like Necromunda. They tried (and failed) to do something like that with Kill Team, but I hope they make a supplement like APOC for small games of 40k, where squads (and individuals) matter and are highly detailed. Bring back all of the crazy detail and really have some small scale fun

But saying that, I also love 5ed and like how 40k (as an *army* game) is going. I think 40k is really getting a feel for itself. Does it need more work? Yes of course, but I think with the added rules (and removed rules), 40k is a much more enjoyable game to play.