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.

The part that has always cracked me up, with literally every change to 40K... people cling desperately to the past, then complain that things aren't different enough.

Just the new scoring alone has brought on a 'radical shift', and especially the Maelstrom of War missions which are incredibly fun, add a whole other game within the game.

And the fact is some people, and wargaming nerds take the cake, can never be made happy... the sky has literally been falling since 2nd edition.

On the old GW forums, or Brother Edwards, or Portent the percentage of doomsday 40k nerd-rage posts was about the same despite the much smaller online presence. GW had to close theirs because they were filled with so much venom way back during 3rd edition.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The part that has always cracked me up, with literally every change to 40K... people cling desperately to the past, then complain that things aren't different enough.

Just the new scoring alone has brought on a 'radical shift', and especially the Maelstrom of War missions which are incredibly fun, add a whole other game within the game.

And the fact is some people, and wargaming nerds take the cake, can never be made happy... the sky has literally been falling since 2nd edition.

On the old GW forums, or Brother Edwards, or Portent the percentage of doomsday 40k nerd-rage posts was about the same despite the much smaller online presence. GW had to close theirs because they were filled with so much venom way back during 3rd edition.

I have indeed noticed the people clinging to how things used to be. Me, I love this edition. If people don't like it, they could easily not play or play an older edition.

How can you say you love this edition when you have only played it for a couple of weeks? You don't even know it. You have dismissed people's negative opinions for lack of experience. Why should your positive ones count?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How can you say you love this edition when you have only played it for a couple of weeks? You don't even know it. You have dismissed people's negative opinions for lack of experience. Why should your positive ones count?

Because things that happened in the past are the past.

I started at the tail end of 6th and started playing 2-3 times a week once 7th came out. I don't know how things "used" to be and that is fine, it doesn't matter because it has no bearing on the here and now. Why harp on how things used to be when you can simply enjoy the game and accept changes as they come?

My "lack of experience" as you say makes no nevermind when it comes to my opinion or my enjoyment of the game because I refuse to acknowledge how things were before because they no longer matter.

And I am not dismissing any opinions. People are free to have them, I simply find it annoying to hear people talk about how things used to be is all. Expressing your dislike is not going to change the here and now, Games Workshop is not going to retract 7th edition to make those people who want things the way they used to be happy. So why complain? Just play the game and enjoy it, or, as the original poster asks, why not just play an older edition?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
How about criticising and giving up on the game based on very real first- and second-hand experience? Is that nonsense too?

If you played it for a few months and just decided you couldn't enjoy it, I'd understand. But for one thing, a lot of the negative comments are coming from people who admit to having no interest in even trying.

That Saturday morning the rules were released we played them the entire day and have continued to play them since; I've yet to see the 'sky is falling' doomsday scenarios the internet is hypothetically afraid of. Certainly nothing worse than what we've already seen in previous editions. That said, like every other edition, it's not perfect.

Despite the rosy colored nostalgia, none of the previous editions were actually better.

I'll have to agree with you that none of the editions are really any better. That said, whilst I admit it seems early I've played a few games and I'm done with 7th edition. Then again, I'm done with editions in general. Lots of gak has occured recently with GW and I'm just done with their editions. Every last one of them is flawed heavily and 7th is simply the edition that broke the Camel's back for me. I tried Mael but was irked, assault is still almost the same, and many other problems. At this point, I'm honestly thinking of just going with my friends to make up our own rules. Sure, it won't be balanced by any means as we'd have a limited group that can't really make it all balanced but at least if we work on it we can come out more satisfied. Plus grab from the editions what we like and toss away the stuff we don't

When people ask questions like this, my response is always the same.

"Why doesn't GW just make rules that aren't garbage?"

I don't think the issue is that veterans are looking back with rosey colored glasses. (though I'm sure some are.) I think its more that veterans have enough experience to know what they like and what they don't like. For example: the maelstrom missions. For some people I'm sure it's a load of fun. It's probably the best thing since sliced bread. But for some veterans, they look at that and say "that's not the kind of game we want to play." It's not about nostalgia. I've been playing since RT and though I loved 1st and 2nd, I realize they were kind of crappy.
And you say that you just started playing. Here's an alternative argument. (which I don't believe, but I'm using your methods against you.) Maybe you just don't know any better?

It doesn't help that GW stores have a 'Current edition only" policy.

people mostly just house rule away the stuff they dont want, and add houserules they do want... same as always really.

and more and more, that seems to be the whole point to the game, two people play the game they both want to play,

it only gets hard/frustrating when you try to get 30+ people to play the same game lol

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think the issue is that veterans are looking back with rosey colored glasses. (though I'm sure some are.) I think its more that veterans have enough experience to know what they like and what they don't like. For example: the maelstrom missions. For some people I'm sure it's a load of fun. It's probably the best thing since sliced bread. But for some veterans, they look at that and say "that's not the kind of game we want to play." It's not about nostalgia. I've been playing since RT and though I loved 1st and 2nd, I realize they were kind of crappy.
And you say that you just started playing. Here's an alternative argument. (which I don't believe, but I'm using your methods against you.) Maybe you just don't know any better?

I can only assume this is directed at me... just to clarify I also started with RT, I still have all of my notes, summaries, cut out templates, and cue cards I'd made to make the game 'playable', which it still really wasn't lol. Just out of curiosity, have you actually tried the Maelstrom of War missions, or did you just read them and decide it's 'not the kind of game you want to play'?

My point was that so much of the negativity is currently, and literally always has been, primarily from folks not actually playing the game.

The old GW forums were filled with the same fear of change, venomous nerd rage many years ago (and closed for that reason), I'm just saying that 'veterans' of the game should know better.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't think the issue is that veterans are looking back with rosey colored glasses. (though I'm sure some are.) I think its more that veterans have enough experience to know what they like and what they don't like. For example: the maelstrom missions. For some people I'm sure it's a load of fun. It's probably the best thing since sliced bread. But for some veterans, they look at that and say "that's not the kind of game we want to play." It's not about nostalgia. I've been playing since RT and though I loved 1st and 2nd, I realize they were kind of crappy.
And you say that you just started playing. Here's an alternative argument. (which I don't believe, but I'm using your methods against you.) Maybe you just don't know any better?

I can only assume this is directed at me... just to clarify I also started with RT, I still have all of my notes, summaries, cut out templates, and cue cards I'd made to make the game 'playable', which it still really wasn't lol. Just out of curiosity, have you actually tried the Maelstrom of War missions, or did you just read them and decide it's 'not the kind of game you want to play'?

My point was that so much of the negativity is currently, and literally always has been, primarily from folks not actually playing the game.

The old GW forums were filled with the same fear of change, venomous nerd rage many years ago (and closed for that reason), I'm just saying that 'veterans' of the game should know better.

They should know better...and play a game they won't enjoy? I think there's a disconnect between our arguments here. I think after twenty years I can see something in 40k and say, "that's not a good idea and I won't enjoy it." I'm not afraid of change. I love change when it's for the better. But the broken FOC system combined with randomness and combined with dyslexic mealstrom missions= not fun for me. It's not right or wrong, its just not the kind of game I want to play. If there's a game where you get kicked in the nuts every time you roll a one, I don't have to play it to know I won't enjoy it.

I know this probably comes off as "He hasn't even played it so he don't know nothing!"
Not exactly. I loved 6th but it had some big problems for me. Mainly, the balance. What 7th did was make those balance problems bigger. Some of the deathstars were actually fixed, but the larger balance issues only got worse. Now combine that with me thinking that this was just a blatant cash grab that is too expensive, too soon after 6th and still too broken for pickup games.

 Gunzhard wrote:
The old GW forums were filled with the same fear of change, venomous nerd rage many years ago (and closed for that reason), I'm just saying that 'veterans' of the game should know better.

People have issues with adjusting to change and also hate getting out of their comfort zone.
Fact of life is change will happen.

Scoffing at the "veterans that should know better" is just another way of looking for the nerd rage to head your way (though it is looking a bit trollish, so you may want that...)
We all have different reason for playing the game and your needs may be "simpler" than others and you fail to see their point (rather than a "superior" view of things...).
You make some valid observations, the attitude just makes them less... palatable.

I agree that before you complain, try it out.
Firm rule my gaming group has is we all have to get at least 4 games in before we can say a word about changing things.

Been at this game pretty much from the beginning and it is perfectly fine to identify weak areas (nature of the beast) and sometimes we are surprised by a FAQ update but some improvements have been observed as well.

Pickup games I keep pointing out will be even more hit or miss by way of power levels (which I enjoy finding new people to play) but with my friends the rules have actually improved things.

So you're not playing it, just to be clear. Fine but how do you really know the balance has gotten worse? Because of the whiny internet? Again, you should know better. The daemon psychic spam is not half as bad as the internets say it is and the impact of the magic invisible unit on one objective is hardly as big an impact as the 'sky is fallers' thought it would be. And in reality how often do you really anticipate playing against the so-called doomsday lists? If you play against jerks whichever edition you choose will not be enjoyable.

The money argument I get. But again 7 editions in almost 30 years is hardly constant change.

 Gunzhard wrote:
So you're not playing it, just to be clear. Fine but how do you really know the balance has gotten worse? Because of the whiny internet? Again, you should know better. The daemon psychic spam is not half as bad as the internets say it is and the impact of the magic invisible unit on one objective is hardly as big an impact as the 'sky is fallers' thought it would be. And in reality how often do you really anticipate playing against the so-called doomsday lists? If you play against jerks whichever edition you choose will not be enjoyable.

The money argument I get. But again 7 editions in almost 30 years is hardly constant change.

I was referring more to the broken FOC issues.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
How can you say you love this edition when you have only played it for a couple of weeks? You don't even know it. You have dismissed people's negative opinions for lack of experience. Why should your positive ones count?

Because things that happened in the past are the past.

I started at the tail end of 6th and started playing 2-3 times a week once 7th came out. I don't know how things "used" to be and that is fine, it doesn't matter because it has no bearing on the here and now. Why harp on how things used to be when you can simply enjoy the game and accept changes as they come?

My "lack of experience" as you say makes no nevermind when it comes to my opinion or my enjoyment of the game because I refuse to acknowledge how things were before because they no longer matter.

And I am not dismissing any opinions. People are free to have them, I simply find it annoying to hear people talk about how things used to be is all. Expressing your dislike is not going to change the here and now, Games Workshop is not going to retract 7th edition to make those people who want things the way they used to be happy. So why complain? Just play the game and enjoy it, or, as the original poster asks, why not just play an older edition?

All 40k editions have flaws, and all 40k editions could probably be fixed, the looking to the past thing is mostly "gee, I wish they had of just fixed X edition instead of just juggling the rules around and releasing another edition that is equally flawed but in a different way". Personally, I like 2nd edition, not because it was less flawed, I just like the way the rules worked, IMO they weren't far off being a good ruleset, that's why I tend to talk about 2nd edition more. Things like to hit modifiers and save modifiers, the movement characteristic, using dice other than D6's.

Now, the "experience" part. You can say that the rules have only been out for X amount of time so we can't judge... but many of us have been playing for several editions. When a new edition comes out, it's really not hard to see without even playing a game what you will and won't like. When 8th edition WHFB came out, I straight away knew I didn't like the push to larger regiments and I straight away knew I didn't like random charge distances. When random charge distances hit 40k I knew I wouldn't like it. Hell, there are things from way back in 3rd edition I knew I wouldn't like before I even played a game and I STILL don't like them now 4 editions later.

Looking at 7th edition, it keeps all the things I didn't like about 6th edition and adds a complete lack of structure to building army lists. It's basically gone "well, we have no idea how to make a good system for structuring your army, so who gives a damn, do whatever the hell you want! Take as many FOC's as you want! Still too restrictive? Whatever, just take anything you damned well please!"

You can argue that it's no more flawed than previous editions, but sometimes the flaws are more significant, like random charge distances and a lack of structure to list building.

 Talizvar wrote:


Scoffing at the "veterans that should know better" is just another way of looking for the nerd rage to head your way (though it is looking a bit trollish, so you may want that...)
We all have different reason for playing the game and your needs may be "simpler" than others and you fail to see their point (rather than a "superior" view of things...).
You make some valid observations, the attitude just makes them less... palatable.

I agree that before you complain, try it out.
Firm rule my gaming group has is we all have to get at least 4 games in before we can say a word about changing things.

Been at this game pretty much from the beginning and it is perfectly fine to identify weak areas (nature of the beast) and sometimes we are surprised by a FAQ update but some improvements have been observed as well.

Pickup games I keep pointing out will be even more hit or miss by way of power levels (which I enjoy finding new people to play) but with my friends the rules have actually improved things.

It's not about needs dude, it's about expectation. If after nearly 30 years you are still waiting for some tight tournament style set of rules, that never previously existed or was even hinted at, well I think you should know better. :-)

If you play the game and hate it, well at least you've tried. To hate something you've literally never tried is literally the definition of ignorance, I'm sorry if that's not palatable.

Change is fine , if it makes the game more enjoyable and better. But clearly, GW's "change" is mainly to sell models and make investors happy. If you can't see what's going on, then you are fooling yourself.

fixxxer76 wrote:
Change is fine , if it makes the game more enjoyable and better. But clearly, GW's "change" is mainly to sell models and make investors happy. If you can't see what's going on, then you are fooling yourself.

And he should know better.

If I thought the rules were genuinely being revised and changed, and new codex books written, to make the game better and include new models I wouldn't mind. (Though to get through six editions and still not get it right is a bit poor). But it's done purely to sell new books and models, which is the company's purpose I agree. However, I prefer to play the game from a time when it was by gamers for gamers, not by accountants for collectors.

 Gunzhard wrote:


My point was that so much of the negativity is currently, and literally always has been, primarily from folks not actually playing the game.

The old GW forums were filled with the same fear of change, venomous nerd rage many years ago (and closed for that reason), I'm just saying that 'veterans' of the game should know better.

I agree with the first point quite a bit (actually I'm not so sure though I agree some tend to take it out of proportion as if the rules can't be changed) - I'll leave it there and the second, while very sadly true, also underlined legitimate concerns that the game they played and generally liked/loved changed as drastically as it did, though it's always a shame that such concerns and thoughts are expressed so venomously - which may also be due to genuine passion for the game/setting as well as general internet irrationality. The reasons for the change to 3rd, if I recall correctly, were so that player's 'could play with more of their collection during a normal game'. Essentially - the players asked for it. I don't know if that's true or not but I felt a lot of character was taken out of the game's basic mechanics that 3rd Ed onwards hasn't quite captured.

For me I prefer 2nd Edition because of its scope for detail which adds to the sense of in game narrative, stuff such as weapons jamming/exploding, vehicles careening out of control (and I feel the vehicle rules in general are the best there's been so far), as well as mechanics like to hit and save modifiers and the ability to throw multiple grenades. I know it's not to everyone's liking but that's the edition my brother and I enjoy most as well as being the better value from a financial point of view.

This said I felt 5th was great, if not better, for Apocalypse games (I'm sure 6th and now 7th will be great too), something 2nd Ed could never really do unless you took a 6 month sabbatical

 MWHistorian wrote:

fixxxer76 wrote:
Change is fine , if it makes the game more enjoyable and better. But clearly, GW's "change" is mainly to sell models and make investors happy. If you can't see what's going on, then you are fooling yourself.

And he should know better.

My expectations are quite realistic, this has been a regular complaint about GW for decades now. Given the life span of this game, I don't think that just 7 editions, to 'sell models' and to make an enjoyable game is too unreasonable.

i suppose it depends entirely on your group. mine aren't big on 40k so we have been playing 6th ed or 1st ed! no-one has got 7 ed yet, but i'm going to next week so we'll probably give it a go. in the end what and how you play is limited by your opponents. mine are flexible, we've been meaning to try out different editions of 40k and see which ones we like best! if your group are flexible then wicked but if you're not i can see why you'd be upset if you didn't think the latest edition was fun.

Well, still looking to get more pick-up games in before I have a good excuse to rant.

Got two games in with my friends of IG vs Space Marines and it was a fun scrap.

I do have to comment that I felt like an Ork with the "Ead Bang" issues in the psychic phase. Astropath and Primaris had some serious perils issues. I need to do the math but it looks like it is even easier for those guys to get a headache. Will have to dust off the Grey Knights and see how many heads pop.

As a comment again about the "good old" editions, only 2nd edition seemed enough different to me and scary in power to differentiate itself enough to dust off.

I've played every edition of 40k. Began with Rogue Trader and went all the way through to 6th. 2nd is the way forwards though. It's just the edition that myself and friends still enjoy playing.

So, yeah, we still play the old editions. Thinking of playing some Rogue Trader soon actually..

I set up a game of 1st edition at our store last Friday night. Four players, great fun. A chance for folks who didn't play in the 80s to see what it was originally all about!

That said, to me that's an occasional thing, not for every week.

2nd edition is absolutely awesome if played with friends who are on the same page about what everyone wants from a given game. I think it's cool because not only is it the edition that got me into GW, but it's the single most playable edition that is different enough from all the others to spice things up, while at the same time being familiar enough that players of other editions can very easily pick up the rules. At most, close combat will be the largest stepping stone.

No, it's not going to give a good Apocolypse-level feel of a game. That's what one of the editions of Epic are for. 2nd edition is an excellent way to play a game of 40K with about half the troops on the table as a current game would see, due to horrible codex inflation issues over the years.

Heck, without checking my books, I think it's actually the longest-running edition of the game to date.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
2nd edition is absolutely awesome if played with friends who are on the same page about what everyone wants from a given game. I think it's cool because not only is it the edition that got me into GW, but it's the single most playable edition that is different enough from all the others to spice things up, while at the same time being familiar enough that players of other editions can very easily pick up the rules. At most, close combat will be the largest stepping stone.

No, it's not going to give a good Apocolypse-level feel of a game. That's what one of the editions of Epic are for. 2nd edition is an excellent way to play a game of 40K with about half the troops on the table as a current game would see, due to horrible codex inflation issues over the years.

Heck, without checking my books, I think it's actually the longest-running edition of the game to date.

Agreed on all counts, though I actually like the combat as it gives a very one-on-one type feel with the Parry rules and what-not, despite it taking longer there's really not that much, if you've done your shooting right, and results can surprise you occassionally, although it could get ridiculous as well. I think most people forget that models have to be in base contact and if they're not then your opponent can actually shoot any unengaged enemy models with the remainder of their squad, although that's a coward's way!

I worked it out the other day that points between 2nd and 6th have decreased by an average of 40% or so, using the newer battleforce replacements as examples and for the most part it was pretty consistent. I like having less stuff on the table for it allows a greater freedom of movement, in fact I prefered smaller games from 4th Ed onwards and even 500pts of 2nd is great fun.

I think 3rd Edition lasted the longest, after 2nd Edition, though probably only by 6-8 months or so. It's a rulebook I haven't got actually but will probably pick up at some point. At any rate it's looking like 6th/7th will be the most complete edition yet, although 3rd was near enough complete also - just with really bad books

Frank&Stein wrote:in a fixed group, playing the same edition to long will inevitably lead to the feeling when playing that you've done it all before.

Right.

One of the secrets to 40k's insane longevity compared to most other miniature wargames (chess excluded), is that it stays fresh. Being imbalanced and constantly changing all the time, and adding new stuff means that players are always being given new puzzles to solve and new combinations of stuff to try. If you look at simple, straightforward, balanced, lightweight games, no matter how much "better" they might be, it doesn't change the fact that they sooner or later (usually sooner) get boring, and so then people stop playing them. The only games that last for more than a handful of years before eventually tapering off are ones that emulate the GW model of continually expanding with new content and creating a game that is meta-dependent, and then constantly changing that meta to keep gamers on their toes.

Of course, that's not to say that playing an older version of 40k must get boring over time, it's merely the trend. If you have two sufficiently creative adults in a room, they could entertain themselves with nothing more than talking, and that's a game that has basically no rules, and is free. The same is true for 40k. The game itself is just a tool for having fun, nothing more. The proverbial swiss army knife might be a better tool if it has more widgets on it, but that doesn't mean that one that doesn't have the pull-out french press or the wireless router is bad. You just have to be a little more clever to get the same utility out of it, is all.

Which pretty much answers the OP's question, of course. The reason most people don't play older versions of 40k is because it requires work, and presumably fun shouldn't require effort.

What has being imbalanced to do with any of that?

Games can constantly change while still staying balanced.

Otherwise I agree. New codices, supplements and dataslates are making the game more enjoyable, because of changing things up. The don't do that though if they are either useless or so ridiculously over-the-top that they ruin the game. That's why some amount of balance is required.

 Ailaros wrote:

Frank&Stein wrote:in a fixed group, playing the same edition to long will inevitably lead to the feeling when playing that you've done it all before.

Right.

One of the secrets to 40k's insane longevity compared to most other miniature wargames (chess excluded), is that it stays fresh. Being imbalanced and constantly changing all the time, and adding new stuff means that players are always being given new puzzles to solve and new combinations of stuff to try. If you look at simple, straightforward, balanced, lightweight games, no matter how much "better" they might be, it doesn't change the fact that they sooner or later (usually sooner) get boring, and so then people stop playing them. The only games that last for more than a handful of years before eventually tapering off are ones that emulate the GW model of continually expanding with new content and creating a game that is meta-dependent, and then constantly changing that meta to keep gamers on their toes.

The only point you are correct on is that the addition of new stuff is required to avoid 'the boring' from setting in. Variety. That's the key.

Being imbalanced doesn't help. Variety suffers. Regarding balanced games getting boring because of lack of new stuff, imbalanced games get as boring as balanced games for precisely the same reason. On top of that, imbalance brings it's own host of problems. There is only so much of 'side x wins again!' that anyone will take. 4th ed iron warriors broke me for this very reason. It's boring. No point in playing.

New stuff definitely keeps people interested. It adds variety. It adds change. But Balance is better for pushing variety.


--------



On the issue of people being against change - I don't think it's that simple. let's put it this way. I'd rather get 'improvement' in a new edition of a game, rather than 'change'. Unfortunately, gw's policy is to change the game, not improve it. Sometimes it's quite arbitrary and random. Changes for the sake of changes. Im still scratching my head as to how kroot lost strength, and their characteristic attack. I'm still scratching my head as to why broadsides swapped rail guns for rail rifles... That's not a good thing. Changes need to be forward steps, not side steps.