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.

 adamsouza wrote:
If you take a really small army, and your enemy has lots of guns, and you're evidently playing with insufficient cover, you can get tabled turn 1. Unfortunately for your ancedote, this is possible in every edtion. Do the math.

I understand that as well. However, I saw it in 2nd ed more often than any other. The disparity of quality of weapon systems between Imperium and non-Imperium was even larger than today.

Martel732 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
If you take a really small army, and your enemy has lots of guns, and you're evidently playing with insufficient cover, you can get tabled turn 1. Unfortunately for your ancedote, this is possible in every edtion. Do the math.

I understand that as well. However, I saw it in 2nd ed more often than any other. The disparity of quality of weapon systems between Imperium and non-Imperium was even larger than today.

Is possible that your friends were terrbile at 40K ?

Orks had the same guns as Space Marines.
IG had the same big guns as Space Marines, plus Battle Cannons.
Eldar had cooler guns, but with shorter range than space marines.
Tyranids were not winning games in the shooting phase.
Squats had the same guns as Space Marines.
Chaos Marines had the same guns as Space Marines.
Genestealer Cults had the same guns as Space Marines.

Can you provide an example, because I'm just not seeing it.

 adamsouza wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
If you take a really small army, and your enemy has lots of guns, and you're evidently playing with insufficient cover, you can get tabled turn 1. Unfortunately for your ancedote, this is possible in every edtion. Do the math.

I understand that as well. However, I saw it in 2nd ed more often than any other. The disparity of quality of weapon systems between Imperium and non-Imperium was even larger than today.

Is possible that your friends were terrbile at 40K ?

Orks had the same guns as Space Marines.
IG had the same big guns as Space Marines, plus Battle Cannons.
Eldar had cooler guns, but with shorter range than space marines.
Tyranids were not winning games in the shooting phase.
Squats had the same guns as Space Marines.
Chaos Marines had the same guns as Space Marines.
Genestealer Cults had the same guns as Space Marines.

Can you provide an example, because I'm just not seeing it.

Example: Eldar using vypers, artillery guns, and falcons vs loyalist marines. Move, hose down marines with shuriken cannons with 2 sus fire dice and *-3* armor save.

CSM did NOT have the same weapons. Every CSM list I saw was terminators with reaper autocannon/blastmaster and noise marines with sonic blasters. Sonic blasters were 32" -2 armor save 2 sustained fire dice.

And course there were IG tablings with the good old virus grenade.

Further absurdities: Tyranids didn't table anyone with shooting, but the hormagaunt made them damn near impossible to beat.

A huge problem with 2nd was that transports were utter death traps and so no one meched up.

We weren't terrible at 40K, we were good at breaking it.

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
... miss the simplicity of 3E.

Where 7E gets completely out of control is the sheer variety and keyword overload. Compare the number of entries in C:SM 2E vs 7E. How about the number of Power Weapons available? And don't forget that 7E adds GMCs and Superheavies directly into the game, along with Formations and Allies.

You see this is where the crutch of our disagreement is going to be.

I utterly hated how cut down 3E was. I appreciate that it did stream line 40K mechanics into something more suited for larger armies, but it did so at the cost of making everything generic. Psychic powers, Characters, Genestealer Cults, and Super Heavies were all things I used in 2nd edition and they all got punted in 3rd edition. 7E adding all the cool stuff back to the game is why I like it.

You can always agree not to use offical things you don't like in your games.
You can't use things that don't exist in offical rules, in anything other than homebrew games that you've convinced someone to let you use.

It is better to have an option and choose not to use it than to not have the option at all.

Those options, with their mandatory dozen special rules and sub-rules and sub-sub-rules are pure gak, and you know it. They are fething unplayable.

And quite frankly, the "generic" 3E rules for supers were just fine. GMCs / SHVs can fire all weapons each turn, at whatever targets they desire. Only SHVs need Hull Points. And so on. Simple and playable.

Making every fething thing a special snowflake makes them all not-special.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Those options, with their mandatory dozen special rules and sub-rules and sub-sub-rules are pure gak, and you know it. They are fething unplayable

Your dislike of them doesn't make them unplayable for the rest of us.

This is like D&D Grognards talking about how D&D 1E is superior to Pathfinder because it has less rules.

From a game design point of view.RT and 2nd editions both a clearly defined games scale and scope.And also a clearly defined game play.
Both were over complicated, but the tactical depth and character sort of made up for it.

However, 2nd edition was seen as a genuine attempt to improve the game functions and game play.

I am sure if the devs were allowed to publish the refined large skirmish rules they had been working on for years,for 3rd edition 40k .
40k would have been in a much better place right now.

Unfortunately the 11th hour rush job that GW sales made the devs publish for 3erd ed.Totally lost focus on the game scale and function .
And this loss of focus on actual game scale scope and function has caused the 40k rules to devolve into a short term sales focused 'special snowflake rules snowstorm.'

I am aware some people prefer the way GW currently write the rules for 40k. However these are the extreme ends of the potential customer base.

The 'over competitive' types who just buy and play the latest over powered/under costed units.And the 'collectors' who do not play, or do not care about the rules anyway.

All the companies that growing their market share are writing rules with enough tactical depth to allow varied game play. And with enough balance to provide fun pick up and play games.I just wish GW would do the same for 40k.

I think it's hard to push 7th as the best edition when even GW acknowledges it is a lame duck (6th as well, given the two-year turn around in rules).

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Those options, with their mandatory dozen special rules and sub-rules and sub-sub-rules are pure gak, and you know it. They are fething unplayable

Your dislike of them doesn't make them unplayable for the rest of us.

This is like D&D Grognards talking about how D&D 1E is superior to Pathfinder because it has less rules.

I would argue that when nobody plays the game exactly how it's written, and every event out there runs a huge list of house rules, house restrictions, and house FAQ's, the game there's a good argument to be made that it's playability is broken when everyone has to rewrite and reorganize the rules themselves. To be fair, there's always been house FAQ's to cover some things, but nothing to the current extent, and especially the rules changes and army construction restrictions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I would argue that when nobody plays the game exactly how it's written, and every event out there runs a huge list of house rules, house restrictions, and house FAQ's, the game there's a good argument to be made that it's playability is broken when everyone has to rewrite and reorganize the rules themselves. To be fair, there's always been house FAQ's to cover some things, but nothing to the current extent, and especially the rules changes and army construction restrictions.

Just so we are clear you are making 2 assertions there:
1.) "nobody plays the game exactly how it's written" which is hyperbolic and simply not true
2.) "there's a good argument to be made that it's playability is broken when everyone has to rewrite and reorganize the rules themselves." which relies heavily on your first assertion, and then mentions tournament FAQs being more extensive than they've previously been.

7th Edition is on a whole LARGER than any previous edition. More Codexes, more supplements, more Formations, more fortifications, more flyers, more monstrous creatures, etc...... There is exponentially more interactions between rules and therefore more frequently asked questions generated because of it.

Tournament's are a breeding ground for WAAC rules lawyering. Extensive FAQ's give TO's a valuable tool to curb shenanigans.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Confirmation bias is a real thing.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

I would argue that when nobody plays the game exactly how it's written, and every event out there runs a huge list of house rules, house restrictions, and house FAQ's, the game there's a good argument to be made that it's playability is broken when everyone has to rewrite and reorganize the rules themselves. To be fair, there's always been house FAQ's to cover some things, but nothing to the current extent, and especially the rules changes and army construction restrictions.

Just so we are clear you are making 2 assertions there:
1.) "nobody plays the game exactly how it's written" which is hyperbolic and simply not true

I've never seen a game where people played everything exactly the way the rulebook describes it. This may be skipping over things like terrain setup, "mysterious" terrain rules, rerolling literally impossible Maelstrom objectives, common unspoken conventions against Unbound armies, etc. I can honestly say I don't think I've seen a single game of 7E where everything was played *exactly* as the rulebook describes it.

2.) "there's a good argument to be made that it's playability is broken when everyone has to rewrite and reorganize the rules themselves." which relies heavily on your first assertion, and then mentions tournament FAQs being more extensive than they've previously been.

7th Edition is on a whole LARGER than any previous edition. More Codexes, more supplements, more Formations, more fortifications, more flyers, more monstrous creatures, etc...... There is exponentially more interactions between rules and therefore more frequently asked questions generated because of it.

Tournament's are a breeding ground for WAAC rules lawyering. Extensive FAQ's give TO's a valuable tool to curb shenanigans.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Confirmation bias is a real thing.

The sheer volume of FAQ however, even unrelated to all the codex books and supplements and whatnot, just for the core rules (which aren't actually all that much larger than previous editions) is huge.

More to the point, it's the actual rules changes and restrictions (which you neglected to mention) that are key. Go back to 5E, and about the only rules changes and restrictions you'll see is "no Forgeworld". Go back to 3E and it might be "no Forgeworld or Special Characters, troops must be 40% of the army" That was about it. Now you can look at any event and you'll find army construction restrictions on detachments, allies, banning of SH/GC units with specific types of weaponry, rules changes for psychic powers, changes to formation rules and functionality, changes to D weapons, completely re-written mission objectives, etc ad nauseum.

Tournaments are extensively re-writing rules, not something they did in previous editions beyond the above couple exceptions (which were usually imposed by GW themselves for their own events).

There is no need for 7th to be exponentially larger than 5th, to say nothing of 3rd, and that is where much of the problem comes from. 40k is supposed to be a B&P game, and the sheer rules volume works completely against that. There is absolutely no reason for any unit in 40k to require more than a Magic card's worth of rules and stats. With a picture. Yet 40k has bloated the game with loads of superfluous rules to no real point. Also Vak is 100% right about people not playing RAW mysterious objectives, mysterious terrain, and impossible Maelstrom objectives being the obvious issues. Not to mention the massive amount of tournament house rules banning unbound and unlimited force selection, nerfing S(D) and so forth. The game is a mess, period.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k is supposed to be a B&P game, and the sheer rules volume works completely against that.

40K has never been a Beer and Pretzels game. It's never been that simple, and it probably never will be.

You can wish it to be 3rd or 5th all you want, but GW is in the business of selling new models, and new models NEED new rules, which GW will be happy to sell to you for $50 a hard cover book.

Epic second edition followed by Epic Armageddon.

Easy to setup and play, lots of different units, and nearly all relevant rules could be explained on a few note cards and Stat pages.

8th edition. Because it will fix everything

CHANGE. HOPE. BELIEVE.
Warhammer 40k -- 2017

Damn, it's getting a little hot in here.

Personally I have some bad memories of 2E; I continued collecting models, but stopped playing after a brutal beatdown on my poor (Ultra)marines by a chaos force. That game, as well as my first attempt at playing WHFB is one reason I don't ever play GW games with named characters (and never will).

I have the rules and several codexes for 5E, I think I'll give it a shot with my regular opponents and see how it works out. Specifically, I have Tau, Necron, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and generic Space Marine ("One of everything", with about 3-4 squads troops at least). My regular opponent (i.e., my son) has Chaos Space Marines and Necrons. And I have an Orc army and Eldar army "spares" to fitz around with.

The reason I'm being so specific is if anyone could warn me about units or rules that will make things unfun for us in 5th I'd like to know before the models hits the table. Thanks!

 Stormonu wrote:
Damn, it's getting a little hot in here.

"Yeah man, but it's a dry heat!"

 Stormonu wrote:
The reason I'm being so specific is if anyone could warn me about units or rules that will make things unfun for us in 5th I'd like to know before the models hits the table. Thanks!

Well, the Tau codex was written for 4th edition, so it kinda sucks for 5th. There's even wargear in the book that literally does nothing (CNC node was one of them, I think), and others that people used to argue should do nothing because they referenced old 4th edition rules (like passing a target priority test to use it, which didn't exist anymore). And there's none of the fun stuff 5th had like "Take this HQ to unlock this unit as a troops choice", either. They weren't unplayable, but they weren't that good. Everything else as far as I'm aware had an up-to-date 5th edition book.

 Talys wrote:
8th edition. Because it will fix everything

Or be the last nail in the coffin.

Sorry, but 3E (rulebook) 40k was definitely a B&P game.

 Stormonu wrote:
Damn, it's getting a little hot in here.

Personally I have some bad memories of 2E; I continued collecting models, but stopped playing after a brutal beatdown on my poor (Ultra)marines by a chaos force. That game, as well as my first attempt at playing WHFB is one reason I don't ever play GW games with named characters (and never will).

I have the rules and several codexes for 5E, I think I'll give it a shot with my regular opponents and see how it works out. Specifically, I have Tau, Necron, Tyranid, Imperial Guard, and generic Space Marine ("One of everything", with about 3-4 squads troops at least). My regular opponent (i.e., my son) has Chaos Space Marines and Necrons. And I have an Orc army and Eldar army "spares" to fitz around with.

The reason I'm being so specific is if anyone could warn me about units or rules that will make things unfun for us in 5th I'd like to know before the models hits the table. Thanks!

The problem units in 5th edition, at least in my particular meta, were: Grey Hunters, Long Fangs, Imperial Guard Veteran squads, and Vendettas. The points-to-kill ratio for these units was head and shoulders above anything else I saw in my meta. Jaws of the World Wolf, a psyker power in the Space Wolves codex, was also particularly nasty if you were a Tyranid player. Now I'm not saying never to field the above 4 units, they certainly weren't meta breaking in the way that Wraithknights and scatter bikes are now, I'm just saying that they're very much the cream of the crop if you're going to be playing 5th edition games. Oh, and if anyone plays Necrons, for the love of god just... don't ever let them field Imotekh. His ability to turn the sun on and off was just... so fething stupid.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sorry, but 3E (rulebook) 40k was definitely a B&P game.

I'm going to agree to disagree, but just for the sake of argument let's say it was.
3rd edition is 1 edition out of 7 editions. 6 out 7 editions of 40K were not a B&P game.
40K has exited for 30 years, and 3rd edition lasted for about 5 years. 25 years out of 30 years 40K has not been a B&P game.
3rd edition has been done since 2004, and it's 2016.

 adamsouza wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sorry, but 3E (rulebook) 40k was definitely a B&P game.

I'm going to agree to disagree, but just for the sake of argument let's say it was.
3rd edition is 1 edition out of 7 editions. 6 out 7 editions of 40K were not a B&P game.
40K has exited for 30 years, and 3rd edition lasted for about 5 years. 25 years out of 30 years 40K has not been a B&P game.
3rd edition has been done since 2004, and it's 2016.

If it's not B&P what it is then? It's markedly not competive game either so what classification it then falls into...

The game doesn't know what it wants to be aside from a sales mechanism.

It's not a B&P game, it's not a competitive tactical combat game, and it's certainly not a very good "pickup" game.

It tries to encompass the detail of a skirmish game with things like challenges and different blade types on power weapons but then stuffs things like Titans, air-to-air combat engagements, and tank formations with whole companies of infantry on top of that granularity. It's got rules detail suited best for RPG's and Skirmish games while increasingly wanting to play at what really should be a 10mm Epic scale.

Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

Good thing 2nd ed is more clear on what it tries to be And no matter what model you bring you are hard pressed to find one that CANNOT be insta blown by even humble lascannon. Even baneblade cannot ignore a threat of lone guardman with a lascannon!

Funny that. Even super heavies don't feel quite so out of whack when they don't have tons of special rules making them work totally differently to regular tanks. They are just bit more survivable tanks with more guns. Doesn't feel like playing with different game alltogether.

Or like space marine captain(chapter master in 7th ed). You need to be seriously lucky to survive even single lascannon that gets by any inv save you have. In 7th ed you need to get past savies 3 times to frag him.

Carnifex? That gets better. It can get 4++ and needs 2 hits past to kill in average. Then it has the regeneration thingie that keeps it fighting unless you really pour down fire on it. Still compare to 4+ you need to kill it in 7th ed...And carnifex is weak MC survivability wise 7th ed.

(and then factor in carni is lucky or require co-operation from opponent to kill more than handful models. Suddenly feels lot less scary when you realize that)

 Accolade wrote:
I think it's hard to push 7th as the best edition when even GW acknowledges it is a lame duck (6th as well, given the two-year turn around in rules).

The way I see it is 6th is to 2nd ed basic wheras 7th is to 2nd ed (including FAQ and Dark Millenium).

I've enjoyed all edition's I've played (2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th). To be honest, I think I might have enjoyed 3rd most because I never felt bogged down in rules, leaving me free to FORGE THE NAARRRATTIIIVE!

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, it's a mess is what it is.

QFT.

Okay, I took a minute to get perspective and it occurred to me arguing with anyone here about the best edition of 40K is like arguing with them about which flavor of ice cream is best. It's pointless, as no one is going to be won over to the other side.

What I am going to say in conclusion is that, 40K abandoned the bare bones approach of 3rd edition 12 years ago, and 8th is likely going to be closer to 7th than to 3rd in all the ways that matter.

Fantasy got a reboot because it's sales were terrible, it's IP was too generic to protect, and Mantic was doing "fantasy" better with Kings of War.

40K's sales are strong, they've rebranded everything they couldn't control the IP for, and no one does scifi tabletop wargaming better.

What 40k has going for it is inertia. It's the big dog that's been around forever and is well known and widespread.

There are certainly better functioning games out there that are both far better balanced and flavorful, but they dont have decades of inertia to rely on. Games like Dropzone Commander.

Lets be real, if 40k was just now coming out as a new game, if it had never existed before 2016, would you be playing 40k or something else? I think 40k's playability issues would kill it before it ever saw 2017. Infinity, Dropzone Commander, Warmahordes, etc, would all be much stronger contenders if 40k hadnt been the only game in town for so many years.

If 40K had never existed before 2016 I would likely not be playing tabletop miniatures battles games at all.

Infinity, Dropzone Commander, Warmahordes, etc, would all be much stronger contenders if 40k hadnt been the only game in town for so many years.

Yes. If their number 1 competition, and the game that possibely inspired them to make a miniatures game in the first place, didn't exist they would likely fill a larger portion of the market than they currently do, if they existed at all.

Just like we all be watching more Youtube if TVs didn't exist, but somehow Youtube still did.

40k is not the only scifi miniatures game out there, the existence of the hobby does not owe itself to 40k. 40k has played a large role in what it is today, both good and bad, but it is not the entirety of tabletop gaming. It's been the 800lb gorilla for a long time, but it's no longer the only player in the room anymore.

Ultimately, setting the existential question of the nature of the tabletop gaming hobby aside, if 40k didnt have the inertia it does, practically obody would be playing it over the competition. I have yet to see disagreement with that statement from anyone. As such, there's a very good argument to be made that others *do* in fact do tabletop scifi wargaming better.

 Vaktathi wrote:
40k is not the only scifi miniatures game out there, the existence of the hobby does not owe itself to 40k. 40k has played a large role in what it is today, both good and bad, but it is not the entirety of tabletop gaming. It's been the 800lb gorilla for a long time, but it's no longer the only player in the room anymore.

Ultimately, setting the existential question of the nature of the tabletop gaming hobby aside, if 40k didnt have the inertia it does, practically obody would be playing it over the competition. I have yet to see disagreement with that statement from anyone. As such, there's a very good argument to be made that others *do* in fact do tabletop scifi wargaming better.

Though I agree that the game's inertia helps it keep going, I think the lore and setting of 40k really keeps it alive. It's also, ironically, what makes it so hard to actually turn into a tabletop game, given the scale of it.

 adamsouza wrote:

40K's sales are strong, they've rebranded everything they couldn't control the IP for, and no one does scifi tabletop wargaming better.

Strong but dropping. They are suffering from same problem salewise that FB did. Starting point was simply higher...

If your initial sales are 10, 1 year later 9 then you are dropping. Then if you have another line that was 100, then 90 you are still dropping and even at the same rate. Just because you sold 10x more doesn't mean situation is neccessarilly good and DEFINITELY not sustainable.