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.

*Pretty* broken? Pretty? They caused a fist fight at my store. They, the CSM and Eldar were cheese of the highest grade. Beyond cheese really. Cheating is more like it.

2nd without a doubt. Makes for great narrative driven games, and we still play regularly at our club. Followed by 3rd, using the army lists in the back of the rule book.

3rd cause it was the most balanced edition. It didn't have stupid rules like 6th does (run? really? ADLs and other such should have NEVER been released)

The rules were easier to get into, as you didn't have to memorize and fething bucket ton of special rules in the BRB AND Codex. The army lists in the back of the main book also helped if you didn't have a codex of a particular army.

Line of sight was done right, cover was done right, sniping was fun, etc.

It's what I started playing with and each edition to me has gotten worse with 6th being a pile of burning garbage. I do like flyers but that's model not rules packet.

2nd ed.
Because it was a skirmish game using WHFB skirmish rules.

Which made MORE sense than a modern battle (3rd to 6th ed) game using WHFB skirmish rules, butchered to speed up play and then counter intuitively patched to slow game play to a crawl.

3rd.

While I got into the game with 2nd, it just didn't click with me. Probably because I was in high school and was spending more time surfing than anything else, and any time I got back into 40k I suffered from terrible shiny model syndrome.

3rd edition was where I clamped down on an army, stuck with it, and played loads of games (usually 2-3 days a week, 2-3 games a day). Played the absolute gak out of 3rd edition.

I missed 4th entirely, and didn't much enjoy 5th. I'm liking 6th edition though, it's up there with 3rd for how much I enjoy games.

5th.

Lanrak wrote:
2nd ed.
Because it was a skirmish game using WHFB skirmish rules.

Which made MORE sense than a modern battle (3rd to 6th ed) game using WHFB skirmish rules, butchered to speed up play and then counter intuitively patched to slow game play to a crawl.

That's a fairly entertaining summation of what 3rd Edition did to the game.

Most people don't realize is that 3rd Edition is what broke 40K. 2nd Edition definitely needed to be tightened up, and the rules refined. 3rd Edition was basically a whole new game, dumbed down so it could be played in half the time. And what it did was introduce the concept of "close combat armies" (because close combat was so broken). This was adding a layer of balance complexity to a game that had just been incredibly simplified. Yes, 3rd Edition 40K tried to be simplify and complicate the game at the same time, with predictably disastrous side effects that we still see in the game today (see all the complaining by players who think close combat has been nerfed).

Fantasy Battles innnnnnnn Spaaaaaace. Yep, a game where the in the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, hiding in terror from the dude trying to run across open ground with a buzzing stick.

Every problem with modern 40K stemmed from the abandonment of the a system designed for ranged combat in favor of a system designed for melee fighting.

I think my favorite was 3rd with the trial assault and trial vehicle rules.

4th was going to be my favorite, then I remembered that it had the target priority rules which I wasn't a huge fan of.

6th would be a close second, but I would make a few minor changes.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
2nd ed.
Because it was a skirmish game using WHFB skirmish rules.

Which made MORE sense than a modern battle (3rd to 6th ed) game using WHFB skirmish rules, butchered to speed up play and then counter intuitively patched to slow game play to a crawl.

That's a fairly entertaining summation of what 3rd Edition did to the game.

Most people don't realize is that 3rd Edition is what broke 40K. 2nd Edition definitely needed to be tightened up, and the rules refined. 3rd Edition was basically a whole new game, dumbed down so it could be played in half the time. And what it did was introduce the concept of "close combat armies" (because close combat was so broken). This was adding a layer of balance complexity to a game that had just been incredibly simplified. Yes, 3rd Edition 40K tried to be simplify and complicate the game at the same time, with predictably disastrous side effects that we still see in the game today (see all the complaining by players who think close combat has been nerfed).

Fantasy Battles innnnnnnn Spaaaaaace. Yep, a game where the in the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, hiding in terror from the dude trying to run across open ground with a buzzing stick.

Every problem with modern 40K stemmed from the abandonment of the a system designed for ranged combat in favor of a system designed for melee fighting.

It's supposed to a be a blend, which 3rd did very well. Even in 3rd when Tau came out fresh as a daisy, they could kick it hard with ranged weapons. Didn't need the constant updates killing close combat each time to balance them. (Seriously each edition nerfed combat in it's own special way)

Of course I loved the 'herohammer' aspect of guy with giant hammer one handing it, with a burning plasma pistol in the other fun. But you could make a very shooting army and do great things in 3rd. My Eldar army was a dang good shooty army with only the Striking Scorpions and Wraithlord needing to be major players in assault phases. The only major 'close combat' trick you had to watch out for was Blood Angels Rhino Rush, and even then it was beatable.

Your mistaking guy with rifle for IG trooper /w flashlight vs. Berzerkers or Terminators. It's weak in context but 150 IG troopers all shooting their flashlights at something will make dude with buzzing stick very dead.

Now you have 6th trying to add things like run and overwatch and other stupid combat nerfing rules. And I'm sorry, but this game is all about high tech shooting, to close to do some high tech sword fighting. That's the entire modus operandi of 40K. And sometimes that giant bug isn't going to care whether or not you have a rifle or a sword and laser pistol.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
2nd ed.
Because it was a skirmish game using WHFB skirmish rules.

Which made MORE sense than a modern battle (3rd to 6th ed) game using WHFB skirmish rules, butchered to speed up play and then counter intuitively patched to slow game play to a crawl.

That's a fairly entertaining summation of what 3rd Edition did to the game.

Most people don't realize is that 3rd Edition is what broke 40K. 2nd Edition definitely needed to be tightened up, and the rules refined. 3rd Edition was basically a whole new game, dumbed down so it could be played in half the time. And what it did was introduce the concept of "close combat armies" (because close combat was so broken). This was adding a layer of balance complexity to a game that had just been incredibly simplified. Yes, 3rd Edition 40K tried to be simplify and complicate the game at the same time, with predictably disastrous side effects that we still see in the game today (see all the complaining by players who think close combat has been nerfed).

Fantasy Battles innnnnnnn Spaaaaaace. Yep, a game where the in the grim darkness of the far future, the guy with a rifle is the weakest man on the battlefield, hiding in terror from the dude trying to run across open ground with a buzzing stick.

Every problem with modern 40K stemmed from the abandonment of the a system designed for ranged combat in favor of a system designed for melee fighting.

Umm yeah. So that's why HTH has gotten weaker every edition since 3rd? And if you didn't think 2nd was HTH, you never played against Nids or Banshees in 2nd. 3rd edition did not break anything except it made meqs too strong. 2nd was a total train wreck of a game with WORSE balance than 6th. I have a better chance again Eldar now with BA than I ever did against Eldar in 2nd.

But if it did the blend well, how come 3rd completely invalidated the use of cover for heavily armored troops? Or increased movement while halving the effective range of shooting units?

3rd Edition was a nightmare. Introduced the gunline army because there were such huge penalties for moving if you were shooting, and the close combat armies were moving up to twice as fast as they used to which meant they covered far more ground. 2nd was a far more dynamic game than 3rd because units could maneuver and still engage. 3rd forced units to chose: move or shoot far more often. Which meant the game lost most of its tactical movement.

150 guys with flashlights might make the berzerkers die, but you a: needed 150 of them, and b: they just stood in a line Napoleonic style because the second they moved, they were worthless, reduced to shooting the same distance as a charging model could move in a turn. And that doesn't even cover fleet of foot, which had the potential to triple the movement range of a unit, further reducing the effectiveness of close combat troops.

Close combat troops in 2nd Edition were specialized units that required some skill and guile to use. 3rd Edition just made them the default by removing every advantage shooting units did (and should) have like overwatch and the ability to move and shoot.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Umm yeah. So that's why HTH has gotten weaker every edition since 3rd? And if you didn't think 2nd was HTH, you never played against Nids or Banshees in 2nd. 3rd edition did not break anything except it made meqs too strong. 2nd was a total train wreck of a game with WORSE balance than 6th. I have a better chance again Eldar now with BA than I ever did against Eldar in 2nd.

I played Nids in 2nd Edition. Close combat wasn't even their strongest suit in that edition. And if you had trouble with Eldar, you probably just weren't very good.

Hand to Hand had to get weaker after 3rd because it was so ridiculously broken in 3rd it wasn't funny.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Hand to Hand had to get weaker after 3rd because it was so ridiculously broken in 3rd it wasn't funny.

As an example, I had a SM Devastator kill three (!) genestealers in hth which was seriously impressive since his heavy bolter encumbered him and then, when 3rd came out I was in a game where a bloodthirster rampaged across two boards that no ammount of shooting could stop until it got dogpiled by five Death Company in assault.

The whole 6" move and move or shoot seriously altered the game and not for the better. It sucked that they made rapid fire available to various weapons rather than just marines; it was pretty neat when you coulod do that with a tac squad from time to time (again, I only ever played with ten marines in 2nd and was very amused when some bloke turned up with about thirty berserkers and trash talked about wiping me off the table but his berserkers got gunned down mercilessly by my marines in that game, not to mention a heavy plasma gun taking out all his havocs in one shot! on turn 1! That was a great game) but that's all gone now.

Seriously. People pretend like I'm saying 2nd Edition was perfect. It wasn't. Not by any means.

3rd Edition was just not the right direction. It was a completely different game.

It's easy to say 2nd Edition was broken, when there was never any attempt made to fix it, lol. It's like saying Squats don't fit into 40K because they were too silly, when the Squats fluff and army never made it out of Rogue Trader, which was patently silly as a whole. The whole 2nd Edition mechanics were scrapped to create a faster resolving system that, by admission of the creators, was entirely about making shorter games.

Most of the complaints about 2nd revolve entirely around unbalanced codex lists and unbalanced wargear, as if those things couldn't be removed from the game. Nobody ever acknowledges that, despite the wonkiness of the psychic rules and the need for armor save modifiers to be tweaked, the mechanics of 2nd Edition were pretty fantastic. A much more dynamic game that encouraged movement, and use of cover, overwatch, etc. All of these things took time, but that depth is really the difference between most classic wargames, and games for kids, which is what 40K turned into.

2nd edition certainly had it's flaws (close combat was a bear to resolve), but it was (and is) a great game when everyone involved refuses to be "that guy" that makes everyone groan with his antics.

What must have really sucked was to be an Eldar player when 3rd edition came out. I don;t know many people that thought that codex was good, and shuriken catapults were nerfed by 50% of their capability, though they were a little too good in 2nd edition.

Despite all the whiners.... 6th is pretty sweet.

Wow. Tough question. Been playing since RT, although I don't think that anyone of my group really knew what was going on, roll on this table, squat bikes come out and then go back making hit and run attacks, roll on this chart, now this one.
2nd edition was darned good. It could be tedious from time to time, but remember that the games were far smaller. That's been said already. I did go into 3rd and played the crap out of that too. So I was really immersed in both of those editions. There was a huuuuuuuge change. Not just the rules, but the background. They really stripped out the quirkiness of 1st and 2nd when they went to third. That's when things got really dark. I enjoyed that though. BUT. They also stripped a whole lot of character.

I have always had orks, but I had SM too until 3rd, just traded them out for more orks. I loved the whole close combat orientation they gave the orks, but I missed the silly artillery pieces, mad boys, etc. that they took out. I mean the point is to have fun and I always say that every gamer should play as orks for a year to learn to be a little more light hearted. I mean my Dreadnoughts could blow themselves up, my artillery grots could misfire and launch the crew by mistake, hurr hurr classic orks.

Also KEY POINT - Hand to Hand vs Assault - Pre-3rd was HTH and then they changed it to assault. I know that GW always tried to explain it, but maybe it is the fascination with swords and pistols that they have, but assault is just supposed to mean close quarters, where pistols and assault rifles should be equal. That doesn't really make sense, but it is supposed to be close combat - not hand to hand.

I missed 4th, because I got tired of the gaming club scene in 3rd. Seems like it went to horrible cheese and frankly, they took away all my Orks' ability to deal with anything at range. Couldn't stand against Eldar and their buckets of ranged dice, or BA and the vehicles(I could kill every infantry model in a BA list and still be chasing the tanks)

3rd had broken armies big time. and rules. I liked CC though. 2nd was tedious.

So dropped out, missed 4th. Came back to 5th, more streamlined, decent rule set as a whole. Then we got to CC/ Wound Allocation WTF GW? worst rules ever. So I only play in friendly games now, we play a basic 5th with 3rd CC.

I am thinking of going to 6th because I miss overwatch, etc. Hull points don't bother me. I spent like 20 years waiting for fliers officially and they look terrible. I hate fortification rules so far.
From what I've played of 6th, wound allocation is better, there's snapshots and over watch again so:

6th edition for most rules, although it seem s a bit tedious again with all the damned rules i won't remember, skip the fliers
Still love 2nd, have the books, may play again soon
Love the 4th edition codices, Codex Orks from 2007 is amazing if starting to show it's age.

Sorry that was along little post there.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But if it did the blend well, how come 3rd completely invalidated the use of cover for heavily armored troops? Or increased movement while halving the effective range of shooting units?

3rd Edition was a nightmare. Introduced the gunline army because there were such huge penalties for moving if you were shooting, and the close combat armies were moving up to twice as fast as they used to which meant they covered far more ground. 2nd was a far more dynamic game than 3rd because units could maneuver and still engage. 3rd forced units to chose: move or shoot far more often. Which meant the game lost most of its tactical movement.

150 guys with flashlights might make the berzerkers die, but you a: needed 150 of them, and b: they just stood in a line Napoleonic style because the second they moved, they were worthless, reduced to shooting the same distance as a charging model could move in a turn. And that doesn't even cover fleet of foot, which had the potential to triple the movement range of a unit, further reducing the effectiveness of close combat troops.

Close combat troops in 2nd Edition were specialized units that required some skill and guile to use. 3rd Edition just made them the default by removing every advantage shooting units did (and should) have like overwatch and the ability to move and shoot.

First off it never invalidated cover. A Space Marine +3 armor was +3 armor unless an AP3 weapon targets him, then he can use that nearby tree for a +5 save. Besides walking power suit tank people really don't need cover unless the enemy has some serious hardware. Terminators even more so. But for light assault armies or guard gun lines you need that cover, that's pretty realistic.

As far as moving and shooting, it was no where near as bad as you are making it out. Heavy Weapons should of always been move or fire, not this 'crack shot' Rapid Fire which you reference could be fired and you could still assault! (Le gasp and shock that you can't do that anymore.) And assault weapons have never changed.

Fleet of Foot, something that should of only ever been for Eldar and Nids instead of this run is to show off just how much faster they are compared to the average person. A bug SHOULD be able blitz across the battlefield darting around like mad. And elves...are elves so there.

I didn't play 2nd because I got started with 3rd, and cut my teeth with Eldar and later Nids. At first I lost a bit, especially to meqs but once I got experience with what Eldar could do, and what Nids could do. I could hold my own WITHOUT resorting to a spam list, or cheese. Nowadays in 6th you can't win without 2-3 flyers, an ADL, and standing still shooting. At least in 5th transport armies were usable. Even if you couldn't assault out of the vehicles, unless they were open topped or dedicated assault vehicles. Which to me is also bs.

Best balance between the armies, quick games even when using large armies, not bogged down with 50 special rules.

The major killer of marines is weight of fire, which cover does not help them with.

With cover modifying to-hit rolls Marines would hunker down, reducing the number of shots hitting them, and thus reducing the number of wounds they take.

The inclusion of actual cover rules would do a lot to make Marines competitive again.

Obviously armies that already benefit from cover, like Guard, would still benefit though in the to-hit phase rather than the saving phase.

I don't quite get why people argue shooting should have the advantage over CC. In a world of magic, daemons, and ancient tanks right next to super futuristic tech... arguments of realism seem a tad... meaningless especially with several factions leaning on it and one being almost entirely reliant on it.

(keep in mind this is from observing and tinkering in retrospect with old rules. Tried out the older rules out of boredom during college) Anyways, honestly I don't like any of them per say. All of them are clunky and flawed. Rogue Trader was a mess of a game, 2nd edition had easily exploitable flaws, 3rd edition was the edition of the CC ripping apart everything which is terrible because it throws off the CC shooting balance, 4th, honestly can't remember much about it. Probably a big flaw in it. 5th edition was a shooty edition that favored tanks and vehicles dramatically and 6th edition favors shooting too much and taking from the front is just as bad as 5th's system and TLoS is idiotic (means well but has some really bad oddities). Doesn't help that 6th just seems like it badly needs an entire reconstruction of the rules from the ground up.

2nd for me, it what i started with and after a long time what i came back to.
Haven't really played any of the other editions, though i am half way through my first game of 3rd.
I can see the appeal of simpler, faster games. 2nd does require a greater investment of time but i think you can get more out of a game.
As for the people talking about brokeness in 2nd, i think a lot of it is people repeating scare stories;

Wolf guard with assault cannon and cyclone missile launcher? always illegal because a model cannot carry 2 heavy weapons

Vortex grenades? i never took one or played anyone who did, my original gaming group was super competitive, but they were unreliable and expensive

Virus grenades and virus outbreak strategy card? Ok, i'll give you that one, had no effect on marines, but could table an ork army in 1 turn.

Hormagaunts being too fast? only had toughness 3 and no armour save, major downside. (genestealers tho, man were they brutal in HtH, far and above the best close combat troops in the game)

Thats just a few, as Veteran Sergeant said, no attempt was made to fix it, in my opinion it wouldn't have required much effort to fix most of the issues.
My final point has been mentioned above, 2nd was great for narrative games and scenarios;
1. it produced memorable moments (in my first game back, my brothers scout sergeant missed with his grenade throw, 1 hit and misfire later and half of his own squad was dead.)
2. Virtually any army you could think of was legally build-able, yes you could overload on characters, but not if you wanted to win, heavy weapons killed characters very easily.

I much preferred 5th.

There are too many crud rules in 6th, and I'm getting anti-DP up my ass :(

2nd edition had flaws that you could exploit, just like every single edition has had. All the players I would want to play with just agreed to not exploit those flaws, because no one wanted to be TFG. Maybe they existed in a time where it was much easier and acceptable to not be cutthroat.

My local group was a ahead of the curve. I never won a 2nd edition game at my own store.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
The major killer of marines is weight of fire, which cover does not help them with.

With cover modifying to-hit rolls Marines would hunker down, reducing the number of shots hitting them, and thus reducing the number of wounds they take.

The inclusion of actual cover rules would do a lot to make Marines competitive again.

Obviously armies that already benefit from cover, like Guard, would still benefit though in the to-hit phase rather than the saving phase.

Eh I could go on a tangent, but suffice to say I politely disagree, and stick with the edition I have come to enjoy best, and that will always be 3rd.

I think the reason people were not so 'cutthroat' in 2nd ed , was because the vibe was fun tounge in cheek , parodies .All lumped together in a fun game where awesome battles and strong narrative that was PROMOTED BY WD.
When the design studio was in charge of game development , you got the honest direct and friendly communications from the game developers.They became part of your extended gaming group.(We sent and recieved a few letters to and from GW devs in RT and 2nd ed .)

2nd ed was a large skirmish game that needed a rules clean up.(Especially assault resolution.)

3rd ed 40k was a battle game based on the WRONG GW rule set.
It should have been based on Epic Space Marine. Take a great 10mm battle game and add detail to scale it up to 28mm size.

Rather than hacking lumps out of WHFB skirmish rules , and patching up the gaps with poorly implemented and applied patches.

I've been playing since 1st edition and I think 6th is the best. It's not perfect, I hate flyers, but I do enjoy the heck out of it.

3rd Edition was my favorite. I don't even remember anything about 4th, to be honest. 5th felt too vanilla, even though it clarified and simplified a lot of things that were necessary. Haven't played 6th, but it seems like 5th with lots of fluff thrown on top.

5th was very good for me and 6th is not . Didn't play in any other edition , so 5th is the best one.

 Captain Fantastic wrote:
3rd Edition was my favorite. I don't even remember anything about 4th, to be honest. 5th felt too vanilla, even though it clarified and simplified a lot of things that were necessary. Haven't played 6th, but it seems like 5th with lots of fluff thrown on top.

4th was basically 3rd with the Trial Assault Rules and Trial Vehicle Rules baked in, along with target priority (had to make a ld check to shoot something further away, unless it was a MC or Vehicle).

Unless I'm badly remembering that was what it boiled down to.

4th was basically 3rd with the Trial Assault Rules and Trial Vehicle Rules baked in, along with target priority (had to make a ld check to shoot something further away, unless it was a MC or Vehicle).

Unless I'm badly remembering that was what it boiled down to.

Exactly why I like it- it's a better set of rules than 3rd edition, to use my giant pile of 3rd edition army/campaign codexes, Chapter Approved, and other assorted material with, when something like playing 6th edition would make all that stuff useless garbage, which I refuse to do.