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.

Looking at Shadow War. It looks good. I'll probably chuck together a CSM squad for it. All the stupidly OP equipment options and team makeups I could ever want, all in one warband. Just like chaos was in 2ed
I could probably get an entire warband out of like, 5 Infernus marines, so it doesn't really get cheaper as a buy-in than that. And it can even play in different ways with different marks, etc.

There was a tonne wrong with 2ed, but since I get my nostalgia glasses on about it (it was where I got into GW hobbying as a kid), I always remember it fondly.

I'm surprised GorkaMorka hasn't come up in this thread. You want zany happenings, odd rules, having to track a heap of stuff, and Necromunda just isn't doing it for you? Then do it with Orks, and whacky vehicles, and all the stupidity that entails. Same sort of scale as Necromunda, but more green. And green is best!

Sorry for threadnomancy.

I recently discovered some 2nd edition battle reports on YouTube.

After looking at a lot of current model ranges, many directly fit 2nd edition, acknowledging scale creep.

Looking at my terrain collection and how much doesn't get used as I generally play the tourney styled games (lots of L shaped ruins) furthered my nostalgia.

I went looking and secured a copy of 2nd edition and Dark Millennium.

Once it arrives, some of us are giving it a go, just with current sculpts of the models.

I played this edition from its release and ultimately, when it was replaced by 3rd edition.

Can't wait.

There’s also this general topic for Oldhammer

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/720/795804.page

2nd ed was great in its time. I didn't find any of its rules particularly problematic at the time, though in hindsight, I think some of the newer rules are better. I'd say the biggest problem with it was not enough factions and not enough models in any of them, except of course for Marines.

In 2nd, Maines had subfactions with bespoke models and rules, and I'm not 100% sure other armies did.

There was lore telling us what the Guard, Sisters, Eldar and Ork subfactions were... There just weren't rules to represent that the way there were for Marines.

I think GW started flirting with subfaction rules for other factions via White Dwarf during 2nd ed, but it didn't become mainstream until 3rd (and even then, some factions were still left out of the subfaction development).

 PenitentJake wrote:
2nd ed was great in its time. I didn't find any of its rules particularly problematic at the time, though in hindsight, I think some of the newer rules are better. I'd say the biggest problem with it was not enough factions and not enough models in any of them, except of course for Marines.

In 2nd, Maines had subfactions with bespoke models and rules, and I'm not 100% sure other armies did.

There was lore telling us what the Guard, Sisters, Eldar and Ork subfactions were... There just weren't rules to represent that the way there were for Marines.

I think GW started flirting with subfaction rules for other factions via White Dwarf during 2nd ed, but it didn't become mainstream until 3rd (and even then, some factions were still left out of the subfaction development).

GW only released army rules, so unless something came in its own codex it didn't have unique rules. Marines had 3 codexes and 4 army lists, but although they were subfactions in a background sese, they were separate armies in a rules sense - each codex completely self contained. Eldar were just eldar, although the harlequins were like an army inside the eldar army and could be taken independently, and we had exodite dragon riders and character as well. The orks had klan specific units, but they all fought as a single army. guard had veteran skills you could buy for platoons that you could argue acted as 'counts as' for the unique regiments, but they weren't separate units or armies nor were they 'catachan vet rules' etc. chaos was similar to orks, in having specific squads for the chaos god factions but otherwise fighting as a single force.


Sub factions were just paint schemes otherwise - the ultramarine codex acted as a generic marine codex and they specifically suggested building other chapters from it, but only as paint schemes.










Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT:

I enjoyed 2nd ed but I think that it could have been improved while staying within the rules space it used.

Melee and shooting functioned so differently and melee took so much longer, i didn't really see any advantage to that, so would have been happier with simpler rules to bring melee in line with shooting, in terms of its time sink and impact on the game.

That's why i did a revised version of the game, mainly affecting how melee worked and integrating initiative into shooting.

Also slightly streamlining armour penetration.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/811922.page

Just to agree that the multiplicity of sub factions is really a feature of the last few editions.

They basically didn't exist in 2nd edition and in 3rd or 4th they were quite limited.

The limitation on sub factions is actually something I view as a positive for 2nd edition. My personal opinion is that adding layers of rules from sub factions, formations, etc, works against playability in favor of the sort thematic detail that really only benefits an RPG.

Yeah and even now the only real subfactions are Marines. Most other factions the "subfactions" amount to a pitiful handful of rule adjustments that often tend to just theme them around a specific tactical approach (ranged, close combat etc..).


There was that REALLY messy time when GW almost got to the point of enforcing paint schemes defining your rules when you could combine lots of different subfaction armies at the same time and everyone was running around with combined armies with ranged units in the ranged faction; close combat ones in the cc one and so forth.

GW has also flipped back and forth with a few subfactions in making them their own armies or not. Harlequins have done that as have Imperial Agents/Assassins/Inquisition. Or even mixing two armies into one new one (Eldar+Dark Eldar)


I do wonder if one day GW will end up doing what Infinity have done and fully splintering some of the Xenos forces into smaller subfactions fully. If just because the armies will become so bloated with model choices and optoins that they start to lose identity, but also start to become a hindrance to people starting armies.

In fact we HAVE seen that happen with Demons in AoS and we are "kind of" seeing GW set the potential ground work to do it in 40K too.

2nd Ed did a fair amount for the various forces.

Tyranids in particular gained Hive Tyrants, Lictors, Biovores, Gargoyles and Hormagaunts. And Spore Mines. Their book also contained a rough and ready Genestealer Cult Force.

Chaos had a bit of everything, and introduced the concept of older models of equipment. Also the Daemonworld sub-list, which was pretty bonkers. And maybe a future project for me.

Orks had Clans

Space Wolves got the most attention Marines wise.

 Eilif wrote:

The limitation on sub factions is actually something I view as a positive for 2nd edition. My personal opinion is that adding layers of rules from sub factions, formations, etc, works against playability in favor of the sort thematic detail that really only benefits an RPG.

And I can get behind that- but only if they also gut BA, DA and SW.

Because either ALL factions get meaningful subfactions or NONE do.

This Marines are special gak has to end. FFS, they already have their own fething game that excludes everyone else. And yes, I know people who like HH will talk about Admech, Dark Mech, Custodes and Solar Auxilia... I know that "technically" it isn't an all marine game... But it's damn close.

And while 8th and 9th DID actually grant EVERYONE meaningful subfactions (making them my favourite editions of all time), 10th clawed all of that back, except for... You guessed it: BA, DA and soon SW. Each of these factions can choose any of the detachments in their own book, plus any of the basic SM detachments... So BA get 10 choices while Sisters get 4.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

The limitation on sub factions is actually something I view as a positive for 2nd edition. My personal opinion is that adding layers of rules from sub factions, formations, etc, works against playability in favor of the sort thematic detail that really only benefits an RPG.

And I can get behind that- but only if they also gut BA, DA and SW.

Because either ALL factions get meaningful subfactions or NONE do.

This Marines are special gak has to end.

GW laughs in your face. Sorry, but "Marines are special gak" has been a thing since late stage RT. It's not going to end in your lifetime.

 PenitentJake wrote:
FFS, they already have their own fething game that excludes everyone else. And yes, I know people who like HH will talk about Admech, Dark Mech, Custodes and Solar Auxilia... I know that "technically" it isn't an all marine game... But it's damn close.

So you're salty about a game centered on the Imperium civil war not including A) Xenos, B) Factions that didn't exist at that time in the lore.

My only salt about HH is that they set "new epic" in it and that means no vast swarms of Tyranids or Biotitans :(

That said they are doing mechaniucm and dark mechanicum so I can make up for that with spidermechs....



But yeah Marines outsell every other faction by a VAST amount. It's no surprise that they get more attention and lets face it; it was really only the height of the Kirby era when GW got too hyper focused on maximum return on investment that Marines got a little silly and we had the whole mess with Primaris and Regular at the same time (and I get the feeling GW today really wishes they had one or the other not both at once in some ways)

 Eilif wrote:
Just to agree that the multiplicity of sub factions is really a feature of the last few editions.

They basically didn't exist in 2nd edition and in 3rd or 4th they were quite limited.

The limitation on sub factions is actually something I view as a positive for 2nd edition. My personal opinion is that adding layers of rules from sub factions, formations, etc, works against playability in favor of the sort thematic detail that really only benefits an RPG.

I think 3rd and early 4th were very subfaction focussed, but I think the subfactions were packaged in a way where they were bespoke variants with their own army list, closer to how distinct factions are presented now. The chief exceptions were the Doctrines and Chapter traits systems, which had more flexibility. Personally I preferred the 3rd ed approach to subfactions compared to the 8th-9th paradigm.

They are spending a tonne of time on building slight variations of the same models, and other non marine armies languishing.

I would have no problem with this if GW marketed their games as 'Pick your imperial PC and grab a box of NPC chaff to kill', but they sell their factions as equivalent. But they aren't. No non marine/imperial factions get regular novel releases, character variations etc. These are all part of the experience of having a marine/imperial faction; they are not sold as super special things only marines/imperials get, they're just 'new fiction, new toys for your faction'.

A new player seeing all this variety for marines and no official visible advice that ONLY marines get this is absolutely right to be disappointed and angry that they invest in orks to discover they get none of the support they saw marines get. They get none of the game immersion material or options.

GW are selling 2 different gaming experiences but they pretend they are the same.

It is pretty close to a bait and switch, using the marines as their poster kids and showing everything they get, but not telling you that only marines get that so if you pick eldar, orks necrons whatever the shiny glam you see in their advertising won't apply to you.

ccs wrote:


GW laughs in your face. Sorry, but "Marines are special gak" has been a thing since late stage RT. It's not going to end in your lifetime.

Oh, believe me, I'm under no illusions. But everything done to move the needle helps. Again, 9th came much closer to the ideal than most editions just by making subfactions actually matter to ALL non-marine factions. I know there will never be true parity, and honestly, I'm okay with that because I know that the truckloads of cash spent on marines in the past four decades are what has kept the company and the game alive where so many others have crashed and burned.

9th was close enough- especially when we got the extras in campaign books. There was an OoOML and Bloody Rose supplement, there were Armies of Renown and the combined armies (Torchbearer Fleets, Armies of Faith).

ccs wrote:

So you're salty about a game centered on the Imperium civil war not including A) Xenos, B) Factions that didn't exist at that time in the lore.

Well again, there are ways GW can mitigate this for me- I know the post you're responding to was written in a provocative tone, but I'm actually a pretty reasonable dude.

So for example, expand the SoS component of Custodes and make that stuff 40k legal. You know that cool looking new Admech mechadendrite tank? I'd really lay off the HH hate if that thing was legal in 40k. I whined considerably less when Spartans were easily used in 40k because I wanted one for my Deathwatch. And there's another even bigger thing they could have done to shut me up, but I'll quote someone else before I get to it:

 Overread wrote:
My only salt about HH is that they set "new epic" in it and that means no vast swarms of Tyranids or Biotitans :(

This right here. When Eldar and Tau models were released for Aeronautica, I almost bought in- the only thing that stopped me was that they borked the game to give us more HH crap before I got around to it.

Take the Epic scale game out of the HH era and I'll never whine about HH again. Or rerelease Battlefleet Gothic WITH ALL FACTIONS REPRESENTED and I'll never whine about HH again. Our give us a 40k Warhammer Quest game that isn't Marine-centric. Just do something other than sink us deeper in Xenos exclusion before all Xenos players simply abandon the game, because HH crap certainly sends a message that the company doesn't care about us.

 Haighus wrote:

I think 3rd and early 4th were very subfaction focussed, but I think the subfactions were packaged in a way where they were bespoke variants with their own army list, closer to how distinct factions are presented now. The chief exceptions were the Doctrines and Chapter traits systems, which had more flexibility. Personally I preferred the 3rd ed approach to subfactions compared to the 8th-9th paradigm.

And I also liked the way 3rd and 4th did it... But again, they weren't consistent: they didn't do it for Sisters or Nids (though the biomorphs they gave Nids were pretty good, so they can be forgiven for this). They didn't do it for 'Crons or Tau or DE either I don't think (though I could be wrong).

If 11th came out with subfactions for every faction using 3rd/4th ed methods, I'd support that... But again, everyone gets it or no one does.

 PenitentJake wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

I think 3rd and early 4th were very subfaction focussed, but I think the subfactions were packaged in a way where they were bespoke variants with their own army list, closer to how distinct factions are presented now. The chief exceptions were the Doctrines and Chapter traits systems, which had more flexibility. Personally I preferred the 3rd ed approach to subfactions compared to the 8th-9th paradigm.

And I also liked the way 3rd and 4th did it... But again, they weren't consistent: they didn't do it for Sisters or Nids (though the biomorphs they gave Nids were pretty good, so they can be forgiven for this). They didn't do it for 'Crons or Tau or DE either I don't think (though I could be wrong).

If 11th came out with subfactions for every faction using 3rd/4th ed methods, I'd support that... But again, everyone gets it or no one does.

I'd forgotten about the 'Nid mutable genus rules, I think that was similar to Doctrines and Chapter Traits for list variety.

I think the consistency could have been better, factions definitely got more list variants if someone on the design team really liked them. It also didn't help that some armies were really new- Tau were entirely new in 3rd, Necrons were at the tail end of 2nd, 'Nids really came into their own, and Dark Eldar were a new flavour of Eldar and largely a subfaction like Harlequins. A lot of subfaction lists also never made it out of experimental rules or just never reached any kind of publication (most notably the Alien Hunters codex that never arrived).

With that said, if you treat Dark Eldar as a new Eldar subfaction at the time and include experimental lists, I think only Necrons didn't get a second list of any kind. Tyranids had the codex list, seeder swarms (essentially drop podding in), and an experimental Genestealer cults list. Sisters of Battle had the rulebook list, a Chapter Approved list, Codex: Witch Hunters (these were each intended to supersede the preceding list, but these days it adds extra options) and the experimental Ordo Hereticus strike force list (drop pod nuns!). You could also argue Daemon Hunters and Witch Hunters were both Inquisition subfactions. Tau had the Kroot Mercenaries list (this only expanded one aspect of Codex: Tau, but I think it is a subfaction personally). Oh, I suppose Arbites didn't get a variant list, but they were a pretty niche army to begin with and mainly intended as allies.

Aside from Tyranids with mutable genus, definitely more limited than the 8+ flavours the main factions got (Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Orks, Chaos) but that did make some sense given the longer history and lore for these factions at the time.

To get back on track, there was nothing wrong with 2nd ed per se.

However it was still more in the 1st ed RT paradigm of RPG heavy elements, just without a games master. We need to remember that 2nd ed was literally the first edition that didn't require a mandatory GM to play, but still tried to cleave closely to the RT game design. Every edition since then has been some kind of move away from the that paradigm, simplifying, or redesigning things and certainly a push towards tournament competitiveness.

2nd ed had tournament play, but it wasn't really designed to be the bleeding edge of competitive play.

Wargames back to HG Wells' Little Wars have been about reenacting real wars to see if you could do better than the original generals. So there's a very different feel compared to the modern hyper competitive wargame paradigm.


Modern wargames have been influenced by CCGs like magic (not necessarily in game rules, but in competitive game style), pushing them to be about competing, over the shared experience of mutually working out a war scenario.

2nd ed was certainly pushed more towards the win, but it contained so many other elements to ENJOY that winning wasn't the be all and end all. When you strip enjoyable aspects from the rules to make them lean and competitive, the only thing you are left with is to enjoy the win. So if you don't win, you get less enjoyment. My most fond memories of 2nd ed weren't of winning games but of scenarios within the games, because they were so rich and told great stories.

I've found less stories told in scenarios as editions have advanced.

 Hellebore wrote:
To get back on track, there was nothing wrong with 2nd ed per se.

However it was still more in the 1st ed RT paradigm of RPG heavy elements, just without a games master. We need to remember that 2nd ed was literally the first edition that didn't require a mandatory GM to play, but still tried to cleave closely to the RT game design. Every edition since then has been some kind of move away from the that paradigm, simplifying, or redesigning things and certainly a push towards tournament competitiveness.

2nd ed had tournament play, but it wasn't really designed to be the bleeding edge of competitive play.

Wargames back to HG Wells' Little Wars have been about reenacting real wars to see if you could do better than the original generals. So there's a very different feel compared to the modern hyper competitive wargame paradigm.


Modern wargames have been influenced by CCGs like magic (not necessarily in game rules, but in competitive game style), pushing them to be about competing, over the shared experience of mutually working out a war scenario.

2nd ed was certainly pushed more towards the win, but it contained so many other elements to ENJOY that winning wasn't the be all and end all. When you strip enjoyable aspects from the rules to make them lean and competitive, the only thing you are left with is to enjoy the win. So if you don't win, you get less enjoyment. My most fond memories of 2nd ed weren't of winning games but of scenarios within the games, because they were so rich and told great stories.

I've found less stories told in scenarios as editions have advanced.

I started in 2nd Ed, coming over from playing historical miniature games (ancients and WW2 microarmour). I found 2nd Ed 40K enjoyable, but I also noted that it had a competitive focus compared to what I was used to. I ended up going to my country's first GT in 1997 with an GW Grand Tournament pack that placed limits on wargear and psychic powers. So my recollection is that 2nd Ed had a competitive aspect that GW was trying to endorse. They even called the dreaded Ork all-Pulsa Rocket lists "thematic" in their articles. Then there were the terror of Space Wolves Terminators all with Assault Cannons and Cyclone Launchers that closed out that edition. Good times.

I did prefer the game play of 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed. But we can't go back. Nice to think about though.

I think it's important to note that thematic and rich game play and balance aren't mutually exclusive.

I think that people have a tendency to conflate balance with competition, and then segregate competitive from thematic, taking balance along with it.


it's just something I've noticed as GW pushes harder on their tournament style of gameplay.

I will by no means praise 2nd ed unconditionally, it had plenty of issues mechanically. I just think that the qualitative experience of a game needs to be considered as much as the quantitative 'win' conditions.


A game can be mechanically perfect and uninspiring to play. It can be beautifully evocative and horrendously unbalanced.

I just don't think evocative and immersive experiences are mutually exclusive with balanced rules.

Hence my attempt at updating 2nd ed rules without changing the immersiveness.

No argument on your points, but the qualitative experience will vary. I think that 40K's success has been in establishing a lingua franca for gamers. Two close friends can play any game and have a great time win or lose. Two relative strangers rely on some sense of fairness. For me, the 40K experience has been being able to have games against all sorts of folks that I did not know outside of the game. I have made friends through the game, but having a game that offered us a chance to meet across the table for an enjoyable experience without too much negotiation was a huge plus.

2nd Ed had that, but to say that it was not competitive is off to me. The competitive aspect was absolutely there. I did love the low-troop density of those games, and I miss the days of each fight being an individual duel where one side did not get wiped because it went second.

But 3rd Ed allowed more models on the table.

 Hellebore wrote:
To get back on track, there was nothing wrong with 2nd ed per se.

I'm sorry you saw the faction/subfaction stuff as being off track rather than seeing it as the genuine answer to your question about what was wrong with 2nd that it was intended to be. I myself said the rules of 2nd were fine. If you want to play 2nd in the modern era, updating the core rules isn't what needs to be done to make that possible: what needs to be be done is just writing the dexes for all the stuff that didn't exist during 2nd, and therefore has no rules.

Update 2nd's core mechanics all you want- that still isn't going to let you play Custodes, or use all the models that exist for GSC now that didn't exist then. It's a genuine answer to the question, not a distraction.

 Hellebore wrote:

However it was still more in the 1st ed RT paradigm of RPG heavy elements, just without a games master. We need to remember that 2nd ed was literally the first edition that didn't require a mandatory GM to play, but still tried to cleave closely to the RT game design. Every edition since then has been some kind of move away from the that paradigm, simplifying, or redesigning things and certainly a push towards tournament competitiveness.

This is truthy, but perhaps not entirely true: the first set of campaign books in 9th referenced a GM as an option for campaign play, but with every subsequent set of campaign books in 9th, a bigger and bigger role was carved out for a GM, and the RPG elements in Crusade absolutely CRUSH anything previously printed, including Rogue Trader... And I'm not just talking about progression, though it is one of the biggest RPG elements.

I'm talking more about the long term faction goals, whose completion is facilitated by Agendas which are not connected to victory conditions and often exist in dynamic tension with them, creating choices for the player like "Would I rather win this game, or allow this unit to redeem itself and undue their penitent vow?" or "Would I rather win the battle, or engage in a side mission that will win me more territory back home in Commorragh?"

So yes, 3rd-8th may have moved us farther away from RPG, but 9th then moved us further back toward RPG than even the original Rogue Trader... But it only did that for Crusade players, so if you ignored Crusade, you may not have noticed.

And while GW has butchered some core mechanics in 10th that would have supported more narrative play, they've kept the Crusade elements largely intact, which has at least somewhat compensated for the loss. Equipment lists might be so simplified now that people who like options are disgusted with the game, but for people who play Crusade, weapon upgrades, Blackstone gadgets and Crusade Relics give you back options that the core rules killed. Not the same options obviously, but options none the less.

 Hellebore wrote:

I've found less stories told in scenarios as editions have advanced.

Crusade missions are also closer to the missions in editions past; more of them are asymmetrical, more of them incorporate environmental factors and more of them require unique interactions with objectives. And of course when you combine those with the Agendas and long term Crusade goals of your faction the missions become even more narrative in nature.

But yes, I agree with you that if those who want more narrative feeling games for some reason choose to ignore all that Crusade offers, yes, they will find matched play to be less narratively satisfying than 2nd-5th editions.

On 3rd Ed sub-forces? They weren’t all equal.

Dark Angels suffered hard. From having probably the best bikers and Land Speeders in the game, we got…..a 6+ Invulnerable. Oh, and we also had to share the Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannon load out. Deathwing got Fearless and could mix weapon loadouts, so they weren’t too naff. At least not when all Terminators got their 5+ Invulnerable.

Blood Angels? Here, have a load of perks and absolutely zero drawbacks.

Black Templars. Who are you? Who cares. Have a load of beardy rules, but you’re not allowed Psykers, because that makes such a difference in this edition.

Space Wolves? Not that familiar with their rules, but at least retained their unique unit identities.

Saim Hann. You can have loads of Eldar Jetbikes! Which are, unfortunately, nothing to write home about.

Ulthwe? Congrats, you get better Guardians.

Iyanden. Here, have unfettered access to one of the best and beardiest units in the game which most stuff can’t even scrape the paintwork of.

Orks? Yeah. Nothing for you.

Tyranids? Have some mutation rules, which we trust you not to abuse just to math hammer OH GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.

Necrons? No flavour for you. Ever.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Tyranids? Have some mutation rules, which we trust you not to abuse just to math hammer OH GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.

Lol! Yeah the mutation rules were utterly and unreservedly without any attempt at balance. Fun sure, but you could just do insane things. You could even put a synapse leader into gaunt units; all venom cannon armed warriors (not just one in the squad) and loads of other bonkers stuff. Very fluffy but also so horrifically broken

It was more the lack of adventure with them.

Putting the Ld10 boost on your ickles completely removed the need to maintain Synapse, which in turn meant we saw lazy Nidzilla type stuff.

The same was also true of 3.5 Chaos. So, so many options. Yet most Daemon Princes were cookie cutter (S6, T6, Flying, Extra Wound Tail, Daemonic Visage).

Not universally of course. But enough that I can see why GW removed such options.

Orks got way more than nothing. They had 9 lists by the end of 3rd (standard, speed freaks, feral, 6 clan lists).

Not in their Codex they didn’t.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not in their Codex they didn’t.

3rd out of the box
3rd with codexes
3rd with all the WD/supplements

These are completely different games.

I don’t know if there is an edition that evolved as much as 3rd. Maybe 7th, with the formations and creep.

 Overread wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Tyranids? Have some mutation rules, which we trust you not to abuse just to math hammer OH GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.

Lol! Yeah the mutation rules were utterly and unreservedly without any attempt at balance. Fun sure, but you could just do insane things. You could even put a synapse leader into gaunt units; all venom cannon armed warriors (not just one in the squad) and loads of other bonkers stuff. Very fluffy but also so horrifically broken

Not seeing the issue with venom cannons? More than 1 per brood shifted the Warrior brood into heavy support for a 20pt autocannon. If you had a warrior with 2 S7 venom cannons and BS3, it cost 59pts per model for 4 BS3 autocannon shots (with less range). The platform wasn't particularly durable at T4 W2 Sv5+, although you could spend another 3pts for Sv4+. Against a boltgun, that is less durable than 4 Guardsmen manning an equivalent pair of autocannons (for cheaper) unless you get the 4+, then it is a little more durable. Could also be instant deathed by any S8+ weapon, which the weapons teams could not in 3rd (just removed one Guardsmen).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not in their Codex they didn’t.

Neither did most of the others. All the Eldar subfactions were in different books to Codex: Eldar. The Space Marines lists were in different books to Codex: Space Marines. The Imperial Guard lists (for most of the edition) were in different books etc.

The exceptions were the second Guard codex with Doctrines, the 2nd Chaos codex, and the Tyranid mutable genus. Everyone else had rules in a different book or publication for subfactions (except Necrons with no variants).

 Nevelon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not in their Codex they didn’t.

3rd out of the box
3rd with codexes
3rd with all the WD/supplements

These are completely different games.

I don’t know if there is an edition that evolved as much as 3rd. Maybe 7th, with the formations and creep.

Rogue Trader

Ridiculously experimental.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not in their Codex they didn’t.

3rd out of the box
3rd with codexes
3rd with all the WD/supplements

These are completely different games.

I don’t know if there is an edition that evolved as much as 3rd. Maybe 7th, with the formations and creep.

Rogue Trader

Ridiculously experimental.

Probably fair.

My RT experience was just the core book and the red compendium. Nobody in my circle collected WD, amd the web hardly existed. So personally I was just playing a snapshot.

Started picking up WD myself near the end of 2nd. So was a lot more in tune with GW and change from that point forward.

 Nevelon wrote:
I don’t know if there is an edition that evolved as much as 3rd

The latter half of 4e appeared to be trying to rein in a lot of it, albeit from what Gav Thorpe said it was in anticipation of a fresh wave of supplemental books that never materialized outside of the marine books. I think someone at GW may have realised that they had multiple factions approaching a decade without releases.

Forgeworld of course continued on their merry way with book after book of supplemental 3e-style material - a half dozen different ways to mount or tow a flak platform, pages of specialist ammo (for example a 4e FW leman russ had a one in three chance of one or more shells that would enforce an automatic fall back move on any hit), etc, etc