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.

Hey, I hate to be "that guy" but this has been nagging at me since I've returned to 40k. I'm coming from 2nd edition and I'm having some issues adapting to 5th edition. I guess I'm just stuck in my ways, but I was wondering if anyone could point me to "developer docs" or SOME sort of reasoning for the majority of simplifications present in the move from 2nd edition to the later editions (obviously mainly 5th).

For example:

* AP instead of saving throw modifiers
* Cover save instead of soft / hard cover
* No short / long range and no associated modifiers
* The migration away from vehicle cards and generic wargear cards
* Generic 6" movement instead of distance based on the unit
* Close combat being "locked" and not being able to fire into close combat
* Removal of the Overwatch mechanic
* The tiny, thin, generic Chaos codex compared to the 250+ page plus beast that was 2nd edition Chaos
* etc.

Was this just a (poor) attempt to "simplify" the game for the masses? Was there any logic at all behind some of these changes? I mean was a -2 save modifer from a bolter really THAT HARD to remember and use? If anything the game crops up more now with all the codex specific exceptions and so on.

Maybe I just expect a better ruleset from such a large company, but maybe that's not the focus of GW anymore.

This is all stuff to simplify the game, and in all honesty, I think it's for the best. It keeps the game running faster, and more interesting for people playing.

Everything you used as examples have been around since 3rd edition back in the mid-late 90's. I think it's a bit late to bring this sorta thing up.

I blame the corporate culture. They forgot that they were making a product for gamers, and just concentrated on making a product. They shifted from trying to appeal to people who were smart enough to actually do the minimal amount of thinking necessary to play the game to pushing masses of toys on 12-13 year olds. It got even worse when they became a publicly traded company, and their business people started telling the creative people what to do. I loved 2nd edition, and it took me quite awhile to get used to the new game. I still dislike 5th edition and live in hope that something will be done to fix it.

warpcrafter wrote:I blame the corporate culture. They forgot that they were making a product for gamers, and just concentrated on making a product. They shifted from trying to appeal to people who were smart enough to actually do the minimal amount of thinking necessary to play the game to pushing masses of toys on 12-13 year olds. It got even worse when they became a publicly traded company, and their business people started telling the creative people what to do. I loved 2nd edition, and it took me quite awhile to get used to the new game. I still dislike 5th edition and live in hope that something will be done to fix it.

Here, here sir

I whole heartedly agree

@Brother SRM: Like I said I've been out of it for a while and wasn't sure when the changes were implemented. And I'm just bringing it up to see some sort of reasoning for the changes, but I guess GW doesn't have a very open design process?

@warpcrafter: An insightful view and sort of what I worried had happened :/ I really dislike the newer pricing scheme where character figures cost more too, that's the biggest and most annoying "pushing masses of toys" that I see. Heck it's almost at the point of collectible card games.

Anyways keep the views coming!

Yep, been playing since 2nd ed myself, altho without a break. In conversations with the developers over the years at various events (former Outrider, so I was at lots of events) the answer for almost every question you've asked is "To streamline the game", ie to make it simpler and easier to play.

And no, IMO the modifiers weren't hard to use or remember, not if you played frequently (still in use in Necromunda, aren't they?). I wouldn't mind going back to them personally.

Hasn't this been the case in pretty much any game with a developing ruleset? Ie. MtG has also been simplified over the years (perhaps not as dramatically). And I heard that there were lots of whining recently when PP streamlined Warmachine rules?

It's just the way it goes.

i think half the changes that you have listed, were done to help seperate 40K from fantasy

bosky wrote:@warpcrafter: An insightful view and sort of what I worried had happened :/ I really dislike the newer pricing scheme where character figures cost more too, that's the biggest and most annoying "pushing masses of toys" that I see. Heck it's almost at the point of collectible card games.

Actually character models will always cost more simply due to the economics of scale. You will sell far more of the standard "troop" models than you will of character models. Overhead, production, sales and transportation costs have to be incorporated into a unit that has a lower sales volume. This results in a higher cost structure per said unit.

@don_mondo: Hmm I guess their definition of streamlining is my definition of simplifying. I mean where does it stop, maybe next version they'll have standard toughness and initiative or something (those were admittedly weak examples). But already making movement a standard 6" seems like a gigantic step to me.

@Backfire: Some rulesets don't strive to be a mind numbingly simple as possible to play (a great recent example would be the untouched Space Hulk. Notice how they used 1st edition rules instead of the simpler later versions? I guess most of their specialist games like Inquisitor, Mordheim, etc. follow this approach), especially at the expense of interesting and unique game mechanics. I'm probably looking with rose tinted glasses, but I don't find 5th edition to be that much simpler than 2nd edition, and a lot of the rules are actually messier in my opinion. On a side note I wonder if they ever do remake Necromunda what approach they'll take with it.

@statu: Yes I had read this as a main push for the removal of save modifiers. Still not sure WHY they would need to separate the games...wouldn't it be beneficial for players to be able to easily migrate between the two? Seems like a case of being unique for the sake of being unique, or choosing a weaker rule for the sole reason of differentiating itself from WHFB.

@Inquisitor_Malice: Ah good point, I hadn't thought of that. I still think $18-$25 for a character figure has a bit of gouging in there, but your reasoning makes me less fuming mad about it.

Thanks again for the continued responses guys, I'm sure I'll eventually get used to 5th or just accept it as a watered down version of 2nd and play it at that level. Maybe sort of like watching a cheesy action movie (like Shoot 'Em Up): you know it's bad but it's soooo good.

bosky wrote:

Hey, I hate to be "that guy" but this has been nagging at me since I've returned to 40k. I'm coming from 2nd edition and I'm having some issues adapting to 5th edition. I guess I'm just stuck in my ways, but I was wondering if anyone could point me to "developer docs" or SOME sort of reasoning for the majority of simplifications present in the move from 2nd edition to the later editions (obviously mainly 5th).

For example:

* AP instead of saving throw modifiers
* Cover save instead of soft / hard cover
* No short / long range and no associated modifiers
* The migration away from vehicle cards and generic wargear cards
* Generic 6" movement instead of distance based on the unit
* Close combat being "locked" and not being able to fire into close combat
* Removal of the Overwatch mechanic
* The tiny, thin, generic Chaos codex compared to the 250+ page plus beast that was 2nd edition Chaos
* etc.

Was this just a (poor) attempt to "simplify" the game for the masses? Was there any logic at all behind some of these changes? I mean was a -2 save modifer from a bolter really THAT HARD to remember and use? If anything the game crops up more now with all the codex specific exceptions and so on.

Maybe I just expect a better ruleset from such a large company, but maybe that's not the focus of GW anymore.

I played 2nd edition and came back for fifth as well. 2nd edition sucked donkey balls compared to fifth. 2nd edition was about near invincible terminators and actually invincible hq choices. I remember having a warboss with like 4 invulnerable saves and an armor save. 2nd was hero hammer, and the assault rules in second edition were god awful. Games in 2nd edition took forever. Fifth is very streamlined and games can be played quickly without too much argument.

I've played since the RT era and have to admit I much prefer v5 to just about all the previous versions. In fact, v2 got me to actively decide to STOP playing 40k. Just too cumbersome, too many uber-combinations, and just too little fun for my gaming dollar.

You can certainly argue that the v3-5 chain has oversimplified somethings, but where that line is can be pretty hard to draw in stone. It'll be different for different folks.

There are a ton of things I'd personally love to see done differently, even within the v5 framework, mind you. But that said, I'll take v5 over v2 any day of the week!

Vale,

JohnS

It evolved over the editions, it didn't all happen at once.

5th is my favorite edition so far. Fast, fun, and sensible.

Hi all.
I will summerise the best I can.
RT was detailed skirmish game.2nd ed was a tidy up and a development of the RT skirmish game.(Far from perfect but moving in the right direction.)

GW wanted to sell more minatures so upped the model count for 3th ed.New rule set was developed and rejected at the 11 hour.So 3rd ed was stuck with a rushed hatchet job of 2nd ed.(How else do you explain all the incredibly short sighted and poorly conceived and explained rules changes?)

40k overlord Andy Chambers wrote another rules set specificaly for 4th ed 40k.GW refused to use it,and AC and GW parted company.So 4th ed just fixed some errors and created others to be fixed by 5th ed which also had some erors left in for 6th ed to fix.

All the time the model count increses edtion to edition.

During 2nd ed , 40k got labeled as 'WH in space with guns'.GW wanted kiddies to think 40k was more special than that!
Unfortunatley , as mentioned above 3rd ed was just a quick hatchet job, that changed some things just for the sake of it.

Iron-Chaos-brute.
5th ed is fast, (if you can remeber ALL the special rules, and both have the same interpitation of the poorly worded rules, and your codexes are 5th ed ,not 4th or 3rd ed.)

And is fun, (if you like rolling dice at your opponent).

But I can NOT see how you could call it sensible?
What are you comparing it to?
40k is THE most abstract and counterintuitive rule set I am aware of!

TTFN
Lanrak.

So apparently, you don't like any of the 40K rules.

5th ed is fast, (if you can remeber ALL the special rules, and both have the same interpitation of the poorly worded rules, and your codexes are 5th ed ,not 4th or 3rd ed.)

5th has the fewest rules issues of any edition yet, and some of us actually make an effort to read and memorize the rules. I'm sorry you can't be bothered to. BTW, Dark Eldar have far fewer interaction problems than the new codices

And is fun, (if you like rolling dice at your opponent).

I'm sorry, are you playing a different game? Because I could have sworn that you just said you didn't like rolling dice.

But I can NOT see how you could call it sensible?
What are you comparing it to?
40k is THE most abstract and counterintuitive rule set I am aware of!

I'm comparing it to previous editions-it would be senseless to compare it to anything else (5th edition vs. chili cheese dog as ways of playing 40K ). It's sensible because of the smaller number of problems mentioned above.

Don't assume that the number of words in my posts and the amount of thought behind them correlate directly.

EDIT:

Iron_Chaos_Brute

not

Iron-Chaos-brute

EDITx2: fixed code.

Models drive the rules, and as the models have to keep changing and expanding in order to generate sales, the rules have to keep changing to fit the new models. This means change happens too quickly and things are not properly tested or thought out.

Hence, 5th Ed.

Lanrak wrote:(if you can remeber ALL the special rules, and both have the same interpitation of the poorly worded rules, and your codexes are 5th ed ,not 4th or 3rd ed.)

40k is THE most abstract and counterintuitive rule set I am aware of!
Lanrak.

Two things:

1: You've obviously never played second edition.

2: You should really play more games than WH so that you've have further systems to act as comparison.

I think 5th Edition is the best edition yet.

Hi again.
In responce to Iron_ Chaos_ Brute.

I dont like the current rules for 40k or the use of unsuitable WHFB game mechanics.(3rd ed changed the scale and the scope of the game,and as such should have used different game mechanics.)
Other rules sets seem to be able to provide much better rules to game play ratios.

I do not like 'rolling dice at my opponent'.Thats why I wrote 40k could be considered fun, IF you like rolling dice at your opponent.
(On reflection I could have made that a bit clearer.)

Concidering 2nd ed was a heavily narrative driven skirmish game ,it had NOT reached its optimum development .(I rather think
Stargrunt II is what RT rules would have evolved into , and 2nd ed would have evolved into NO Limits type game .IMO)

However GW changed direction and wanted to sell more minatures.

And all versions of 40k became sales driven ventures.But realy 3rd ed to 5th ed 40k rules, ARE the most abstract and counter intuative rules set/development I am aware of.
When compard to ,Epic Armageddon ,Dirtside II, Infinity, Stargrunt II, Chain ReactionIII, Urban War, No limits, AT43, SST, CBT, etc.
(Eg ALL the other scifi minature games I have played over the years.)

Most people who ONLY compare 40k to previous editions, see a 'gradual improvement' over time.This is more to due with the gradual improvments in the layout of the rules rather than than the actual rules content though.IMO.
Comparing the 40k rules to other rule sets shows how far behind they have fallen.In reguards to elegance and game play resolutions.

2nd to 3rd ed was a culture shock that could have been avoided IMO.
40k skirmish rules , (2nd ed continued to a conclusion.)
AND
40k battle rules , new rules for the next scale of gaming.(The dev teams original plan for 3rd AND 4th ed, apparently.)

Similar to how LOTR and WOTR have seperate rules.(It seems GW plc have learned a lesson from the 40k 3rd ed debarcle.)

Bookwrack.
I played RT and 2nd ed 40k.(Some of my suggestions were taken up by the 2ne ed rules.)2nd ed was more of a 3d RPG, overly fussy and rules messy in some areas,but alot more intuative than later editions.IMO.

Later editions seem to have been written for ease of explanation and marketing requirements.(roll a D6 and umpteen special rules.)

I have played over 40 different game systems , covering land, sea ,air and space warfare, historical fantasy and scifi, settings.
So perhaps you will allow me to make objective comparisons to alternative rule sets and game systems?
Or at least relise my conclusions will be different to those who only played 'a few vesrions of 40k'.

I like the 40k setting and related artistry. But the rule set just lets it down too much IMO.

Happy gaming,
Lanrak.

bosky wrote:

Hey, I hate to be "that guy" but this has been nagging at me since I've returned to 40k. I'm coming from 2nd edition and I'm having some issues adapting to 5th edition. I guess I'm just stuck in my ways, but I was wondering if anyone could point me to "developer docs" or SOME sort of reasoning for the majority of simplifications present in the move from 2nd edition to the later editions (obviously mainly 5th).

For example:

* AP instead of saving throw modifiers
* Cover save instead of soft / hard cover
* No short / long range and no associated modifiers
* The migration away from vehicle cards and generic wargear cards
* Generic 6" movement instead of distance based on the unit
* Close combat being "locked" and not being able to fire into close combat
* Removal of the Overwatch mechanic
* The tiny, thin, generic Chaos codex compared to the 250+ page plus beast that was 2nd edition Chaos
* etc.

Was this just a (poor) attempt to "simplify" the game for the masses? Was there any logic at all behind some of these changes? I mean was a -2 save modifer from a bolter really THAT HARD to remember and use? If anything the game crops up more now with all the codex specific exceptions and so on.

Maybe I just expect a better ruleset from such a large company, but maybe that's not the focus of GW anymore.

I am also a 2nd edition to 5th edition jumper (I quit when 3rd came out)

the AP armor system, after getting use to it, (at first I hated it) I think works much better. Its more realistic to how modern armor works, (this protective vest will stop a .22, but if someone shoots a .50 cal at you, you might as well not be wearing it) It also makes rolling to save much easier, you either roll it or you dont, no need to remember modifiers. Finally, it balances out the value of armor, in 2nd edition you were either wearing terminator armor, or you were naked (basically) in 5th, each step of armor is vastly better.
6+ save is just there for luck rolls when you transport explodes, or close combat wounds
5+ save is there for weak small arms fire, and the above, but elite armies like marines are still mostly AP5, so its not very good
4+ save makes you durable vs most small arms, and if the enemy wants to ignore your armor they need to be shooting some sort of "special" weapon at you
3+ save means the enemy must be shooting some heavy weapons to ignore your save, Krak Missiles, Battle Cannons, etc.
2+ save requires your enemy to fire specialized heavy weapons at your troops, Plasma weapons and anti tank guns.


the Cover save vs soft cover/hard cover modifing the to hit roll still upsets and confuses me. it means that power armor marines only care about cover when staring down the barrel of a battlecannon or similar. (which makes no sense, marines behind a wall are less vulnerable to small arms fire, yet it has 0 effect in game.)


the short and long range associated modifiers mostly bogged the game down, although I did like getting +2 to hit with pistols at close range, by removing this entire rule section the game moves much faster and smoother, with less things to memorize.


Vehicle Cards and Wargear Cards would get lost, damaged, or were simply not available when needed. Too many times I could not field my predator tanks, or my bikers because I couldnt find the Datafax sheets for them.


The generic 6" movement at first really bothered me as well, having a movement value really brought a lot of variety to units, they have mitigated the change with special rules that adjust movement, so I do see this as a change for the worse/complex. now we have move, move through cover, jump packs, jet packs, bikes, cavalry, beasts, walkers, run, fleet, dangerous terrain tests, difficult terrain tests, assault moves, etc that we must memorize, vs before where each unit just had a number, double that if they were running/charging, half it if they were going through difficult terrain, simple. So, at first this bothered me, now I dont mind it as much, but its still bad/worse than before.

being locked in close combat makes sense on one part, but at the same time, the lack of options to flee is pretty lame. Even if the opposing side got free hits sometimes it would be worth it, but the current system does not allow it .... not being able to fire into close combat makes sense for some armies, not for others, so to include it as a general rule is alright, it cuts down on complexity.

the overwatch mechanic was overpowered, fun to use, but far too effective. It makes the game much more balanced and simple without it, while at the same time you do not lose too much (only the ability to shoot at models that jump from cover to cover, but even then, with current "true line of sight" you can probly still shoot them anyways with a cover save, not much different than the old to hit penalties for shooting in that same circumstance)

GW has been splitting up the codices for years now, to increase the overall variety of models to sell more of said models, sometime around 98/99 they stopped writing cool stories for the sake of writing cool fluff, and started doing it to make the newest models seem that much more badass to sell more models.

Backfire wrote:Hasn't this been the case in pretty much any game with a developing ruleset? Ie. MtG has also been simplified over the years (perhaps not as dramatically). And I heard that there were lots of whining recently when PP streamlined Warmachine rules?

It's just the way it goes.

Or, just lately, D&D 4th Edition. The arguments and discussions seem to be perfectly exchangeable - and both are (unfortunately or not, depending on your viewpoint) absolutely futile. The whole topic comes up with every single game that spawns new editions/changes, and it's always the same. I'm wondering that so many still engage in this type of discussion. However, it makes for an interesting read and som nostalgia feeling

It was official GW policy to cut down codexes to an almost minimal size, as they were the honeset impression that pepole perfered having to pay less and just get right to the rules. Over 4th and 5th this has been cut back a bit. That and chaos got hit HARD in the transfer from 3rd to 4th, while most armies (exept DA?) got new units or rules added, along with fluff returning from 3rd ed's minamalist style, chaos lost alot, and gained (next to?) nothing. Exept Huron Blackheart =P.

Hmm all interesting points. Even after a few more recent games I'm starting to (slowly) see the point in some of the rules (and some of the changes seem as ridiculous as they did initially).

5th edition sees that you have a point too!
It wants to be your friend [accept/decline]?