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.

war scenery makes incredibly great STL files for 40K themed tables as well as star wars



https://www.warscenery.com/shop

Several print services have contracts with them, i put in the request for the manufactorum with canvas since they are working with them.

Great thread… been playing a 2nd Ed campaign with a pal recently and it’s a blast. I never played 3rd through 7th (I did the hobby drift soon after 3rd landed) but played 8th and it totally killed any enthusiasm I had for the 40k world, so returning to 2nd has been great.

Luke82 wrote:
Great thread… been playing a 2nd Ed campaign with a pal recently and it’s a blast. I never played 3rd through 7th (I did the hobby drift soon after 3rd landed) but played 8th and it totally killed any enthusiasm I had for the 40k world, so returning to 2nd has been great.

Kind of sad, as 3rd Ed. with the rulebook army lists is the most balanced 40K you may ever play.

 Just Tony wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Great thread… been playing a 2nd Ed campaign with a pal recently and it’s a blast. I never played 3rd through 7th (I did the hobby drift soon after 3rd landed) but played 8th and it totally killed any enthusiasm I had for the 40k world, so returning to 2nd has been great.

Kind of sad, as 3rd Ed. with the rulebook army lists is the most balanced 40K you may ever play.

While workable, 3rd lacks the immense amount of texture available in 2nd. It's why even thoigh I think 4th ed was the best edition for a variety of reasons, when I play an older edition for yuks with close friends we wind up on 2nd. The added detail is more interesting/flavorful/narrative, even though it's "imbalanced".

It's also really hard to guage balance in 2nd because the tactical options are VAST.

2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

Having gone from 1st to 2nd, it felt like 2nd was less of that, to be honest. And 3rd completed that half-step, and abandoned what was left of the RPG elements (though left a few clunky legacy elements that still haunt the game to this day).

I found 2nd really cumbersome, though, at least for 40k. On the other hand, it really shined for Necromunda. Even though 2nd was largely smaller in size than 3rd (in terms of number squads, vehicles & characters), it still felt like it was written for the wrong scale. For ~10 models and individual activations it was fine.

 Just Tony wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Great thread… been playing a 2nd Ed campaign with a pal recently and it’s a blast. I never played 3rd through 7th (I did the hobby drift soon after 3rd landed) but played 8th and it totally killed any enthusiasm I had for the 40k world, so returning to 2nd has been great.

Kind of sad, as 3rd Ed. with the rulebook army lists is the most balanced 40K you may ever play.

My pal started with 3rd, so we had a bit of discussion about which way to go. I was quite up for 3rd but in the end he wanted to give second a spin, and it sounded more in line with what we were looking tor (we’ve added a few RPG elements to the campaign we are doing) but I’d still like to give third a go, especially if we want to get all the toys on the table.

I should add a caveat as well; my pal and I see balance in any edition / game as being in the hands of the players, and prefer options to play with than cutting flavour in the sake of balance. If something is a bit bent, we’ll either leave it out, tweak it, or give the other player a little boost if it’s too cool to leave out or change. It is a luxury of having a like minded opponent though, we probs couldn’t do it with some of the other guys we play with who would break the system instantly!

Luke82 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Luke82 wrote:
Great thread… been playing a 2nd Ed campaign with a pal recently and it’s a blast. I never played 3rd through 7th (I did the hobby drift soon after 3rd landed) but played 8th and it totally killed any enthusiasm I had for the 40k world, so returning to 2nd has been great.

Kind of sad, as 3rd Ed. with the rulebook army lists is the most balanced 40K you may ever play.

My pal started with 3rd, so we had a bit of discussion about which way to go. I was quite up for 3rd but in the end he wanted to give second a spin, and it sounded more in line with what we were looking tor (we’ve added a few RPG elements to the campaign we are doing) but I’d still like to give third a go, especially if we want to get all the toys on the table.

I should add a caveat as well; my pal and I see balance in any edition / game as being in the hands of the players, and prefer options to play with than cutting flavour in the sake of balance. If something is a bit bent, we’ll either leave it out, tweak it, or give the other player a little boost if it’s too cool to leave out or change. It is a luxury of having a like minded opponent though, we probs couldn’t do it with some of the other guys we play with who would break the system instantly!

Fair enough, but I always argue that it's easier to play a balanced/tight ruleset narratively than it is to try to balance/tighten a narrative ruleset.

Possibly, but it’s also very difficult to add flavour to a rule set that has been streamlined to appease the nebulous goal of balance. I’ve never played third so am only going off second hand info, but i believe one of the criticisms was a lot of the goodness was removed to streamline the game for tournament players… nothing wrong with this but in this instance it wasn’t what we were looking for.

2nd is great for narrative as it supports an emerging story with the stuff that happens on the tabletop… I think a lot of ‘narrative gaming’ that happens now is just tournament gaming with a story tacked on, again all well and good but not really the goal with our games, we want exploding chimeras flipping around the table and vortex grenade tag.

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

@Luke82


The thing is with our hybrid 5th edition we take the solid core rules set of 5th but retain the lore based rules by allowing players to use the older or newer codexes that better represent the lore.
3rd and 4th had some of the best codexes for lore based rules for army battle games not skirmish RPG leaning games.

The problem of balance is that most people approach it from the competitive mind set. this is how you get 9th edition and why it is so bland.

It is like chess. it is balanced but it is also identical no matter which side you play.


the joy of BFG and older editions of 40K is that the balance wasn't direct side by side army stat comparison. it was taking the bonuses and negatives of how each army played and using them to exploit the weaknesses of the other faction. as another post put it-it is how your dudes should behave in this setting.


Lets take eldar for example. they have basic human stats for toughness, strength, and middle of the road armor but make up for it by being faster in both initiative and movement as well as being super focused on doing one job very well.

Compared to the GW poster boys space marines who are very forgiving generalist that are just OK at every job but make up for it with better armor, higher strength and toughness.


There is some divergence in themed armies in the older editions like pure deathwing, white scars or blood angels. where they use the same units every other marine chapter does but in a different way with a few bonus rules to represent this. Pretty much every faction had this via eldar craftworlds or ork clans and so on.


This is where the joy of playing the game becomes as much a part of the hobby as painting and modding your dudes

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

You done?



Seriously, are you ready for legitimate discourse?


I'll assume so, so I'll challenge your apparent lack of reading comprehension skills by pointing out that the line you quoted had me referencing the hybrid nature. I realize this somehow hurt your nerd gear by me somehow cheapening what appears to be the major focus of your life, but don't respond if you're going to cherry pick or ignore my posts.

To be fair I really don't see what's RPG-like about 2nd ed. It just seems like a skirmish/war game.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

You could just say 'The only RPG I've only ever played is D&D and I lack reading comprehension' and save yourself some time.

Nobody said 2nd Ed is literally an RPG, and even if they did, glib statements about it not having XP or dungeons are about as relevant as commenting that 40K can't be a wargame because it doesn't have platoon organization or call-for-fire rules.

Well I think it's quite straightforward in that 2nd ed. was designed to be played as a squad-level game, while subsequent editions increased the model count significantly and therefore the level of abstraction of the rules. That was necessary if you wanted to have a game playable within a few hours, so just a change of scope really.

I think it's perfectly reasonably to really enjoy both 2nd and 3rd edition as they both give quite different types of gameplay. I'm more of a 2nd-man myself, but can see why 3rd is also still popular with Oldhammer groups.

Yeah I don't see any RPG DNA in 2nd Ed.

Rogue Trader was the game that had the RPG DNA still there, but 2nd Ed ditched that.

But 2nd Ed also didn't work very well as a wargame (as much as I loved its vehicle rules). Weirdly enough, 2nd Ed only came into its own when they did give it more RPG elements and shrunk it's scale, in other words, when Necromunda came about.

I do wonder if the lumpiness of 2nd Ed has been exaggerated over the years, it works perfectly well as a squad level wargame. I hadn’t played in decades, and my pal hadn’t played it ever, but after a few small games we were rattling through 2,000 point games in a few hours. I will accept though that we are quite used to playing each other and have a similar attitude when it comes to resolving rules quirks, I guess a rules lawyer could slow the game to a crawl, but that’s true of any game!

I think Pacific has hit the nail on the head though, 2nd Ed is a very different beast to later editions. Which is why we are also planning on some 3rd if our campaign builds to some epic games as the amount we have painted grows (I sold my gene cult army after crashing out of 8th so am painting through a second one, not my brightest moment!)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

But 2nd Ed also didn't work very well as a wargame (as much as I loved its vehicle rules). Weirdly enough, 2nd Ed only came into its own when they did give it more RPG elements and shrunk it's scale, in other words, when Necromunda came about.

Huh, why do you say that it didn't work well as a wargame? I played the crap out of it (even competitively in some tournaments) and I felt it worked reasonably well.

It was definitely easy to abuse and do some crazy things, but if everybody was coming to the table with the same expectations it was a total blast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Nobody said 2nd Ed is literally an RPG, and even if they did, glib statements about it not having XP or dungeons are about as relevant as commenting that 40K can't be a wargame because it doesn't have platoon organization or call-for-fire rules.

I guess I don't really see how 2nd Ed is even half or a quarter of an RPG I suppose.

Edit: Come to think of it, I believe IG had platoon organization and some call-for-fire rules if I'm not mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luke82 wrote:
(I sold my gene cult army after crashing out of 8th so am painting through a second one, not my brightest moment!)

Ooof, that hurts to even read!

Guard do indeed have call for fire in 2nd, they’ve been merrily calling it in on my poor hybrids for a few weeks now! The opening barrage is always a tense moment, waiting for the scatter die to land is like waiting for Caesar’s thumb to point.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I guess I don't really see how 2nd Ed is even half or a quarter of an RPG I suppose.

I don't think it's an RPG. But I also don't see much point in trying to assess an exact percentage of amorphous genres that are only distinct by common convention to begin with (see: Chainmail, a predecessor to D&D and Warhammer alike).

I can see how one would feel that the game was more RPG-esque in its narrative focus and varied options at the cost of reliance on common expectation to curb abuse, in comparison to subsequent editions' refinement of codified army composition, gradual shift away from Your Dudes, and heightened prominence of competitive tournaments (and even there, a shift away from things like 'best painted' and 'best overall' in favor of raw won-the-most-games).

Also, I would very much consider Necromunda RPG-esque, and that was built on the core of 2nd Ed- an easier graft than it would be on, say, Bolt Action, IMO, because the core framework to support its narrative elements is there.

(Really I feel much less strongly about 2nd Ed being or not being an RPG than I do about 'if it's an RPG where's the dungeon??' being a downright stupid criticism, particularly delivered sarcastically)

 Just Tony wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

You done?



Seriously, are you ready for legitimate discourse?


I'll assume so, so I'll challenge your apparent lack of reading comprehension skills by pointing out that the line you quoted had me referencing the hybrid nature. I realize this somehow hurt your nerd gear by me somehow cheapening what appears to be the major focus of your life, but don't respond if you're going to cherry pick or ignore my posts.

I am just warming up. Let's get this straight: 2nd 40K had ZERO RPG elements. You were comparing apples with oranges.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I guess I don't really see how 2nd Ed is even half or a quarter of an RPG I suppose.

I don't think it's an RPG. But I also don't see much point in trying to assess an exact percentage of amorphous genres that are only distinct by common convention to begin with (see: Chainmail, a predecessor to D&D and Warhammer alike).

I can see how one would feel that the game was more RPG-esque in its narrative focus and varied options at the cost of reliance on common expectation to curb abuse, in comparison to subsequent editions' refinement of codified army composition, gradual shift away from Your Dudes, and heightened prominence of competitive tournaments (and even there, a shift away from things like 'best painted' and 'best overall' in favor of raw won-the-most-games).

Also, I would very much consider Necromunda RPG-esque, and that was built on the core of 2nd Ed- an easier graft than it would be on, say, Bolt Action, IMO, because the core framework to support its narrative elements is there.

(Really I feel much less strongly about 2nd Ed being or not being an RPG than I do about 'if it's an RPG where's the dungeon??' being a downright stupid criticism, particularly delivered sarcastically)

^I dunno, seeing as it has basically none of the things I typically associate with RPGs It seems kinda fair. I mean, it's also the internets so sarcasm-n-all-that.

I'd also say that the move away from "your dudes" really started to happen in late 4th early 5th, as per many have discussed in the other thread. That's really when options started to drop out of the codexes in favor of named characters, etc. Arguably there was more customization available in 3rd-4th through various means, in addition to more missions with a narrative focus in the BRB and some codexes.

2nd Ed to me is really about a higher local fidelity to engagements. Smaller forces with a lot more detail in their interaction and potential on-table choices.

 catbarf wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

You could just say 'The only RPG I've only ever played is D&D and I lack reading comprehension' and save yourself some time.

Nobody said 2nd Ed is literally an RPG, and even if they did, glib statements about it not having XP or dungeons are about as relevant as commenting that 40K can't be a wargame because it doesn't have platoon organization or call-for-fire rules.

YOU can't read.

"Trying to be a RPG". That was the term used. I guess you never played a RPG. Let me educate you. In RPGs a couple of people sit around a table with pen & paper. Miniatures can be used but are NOT essential.

There are obviously much more differences than I presented which you can google on your own.

 Insectum7 wrote:
2nd Ed to me is really about a higher local fidelity to engagements. Smaller forces with a lot more detail in their interaction and potential on-table choices.

Right, and that's why I don't see any hard line between RPGs and wargames. If what you have is a wargame system with high fidelity to individual characters, exactly what more does it need to be a rubber-stamped an RPG? Adversarial RPGs without gamemasters are a thing; and it's not like classic Kriegsspiel is an RPG by virtue of having a referee. Progression is certainly a common element, but one-shot D&D games are RPGs and Crusade isn't (...or is it?).

Like I said I don't particularly see 2nd Ed as an RPG but I can understand the point they're trying to convey- that it is about higher local fidelity engagements with an emphasis on narrative, rather than mass battle with an emphasis on competitive play.

Edit: Also I would definitely agree with the comment that 2nd Ed is not nearly as clunky as it's sometimes portrayed, and it's absolutely not like trying to take a cooperative long-form RPG and shoehorn it into the role of a tactical wargame. It has some slow points but it's fine for the intended size of play- comparing what 2000pts looks like in 2nd versus what it looks like in 9th is a real eye-opener. I know a lot of the criticism I've seen of 2nd Ed as clunky or slow-playing is typically used to contrast it with later editions of 40K, but that scale difference makes a big impact on what level of fidelity is appropriate. Especially considering how 3rd Ed massively simplified it to allow for bigger armies, while subsequent editions have increased both the scale and the complexity from that revised baseline.

 Strg Alt wrote:
"Trying to be a RPG". That was the term used.

Yeah, it was, and then you stuffed that straw man right up as '40K 2nd is an RPG?', followed by sarcastically implying that only games with D&D tropes are RPGs or have RPG elements.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Huh, why do you say that it didn't work well as a wargame? I played the crap out of it (even competitively in some tournaments) and I felt it worked reasonably well.

Two things didn't work that well, and they're big things:

1. Interactivity. During your opponent's turn you basically just removed models. Cover was just a negative to hit, rather than affecting armour saves (or being its own save, like in 3rd-7th), so if you were playing a low armour army, you just removed models during your turn. The only time you got to do anything during your opponent's turn was HTH combat, which brings us to point 2...

2. HTH combat. That system works on a 1v1 mentality, but unit v unit was bad. Now add a third unit into the mix. There's a reason why the 2nd Ed rules work so well with Necromunda, because you've got 10-15 models per side, and not units rushing into one another rolling individual comparative attacks and so on.

I really do like 2nd Ed, but it was too cumbersome for what it was trying to represent, even with the smaller scale (compared to the double-sized 3rd Ed). And then yeah, there was the Hero Hammer of it all, where infantry basically didn't matter.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Edit: Come to think of it, I believe IG had platoon organization and some call-for-fire rules if I'm not mistaken.

Pre-game barrage, based upon how many certain weapons you brought, and Comm-Links (proto-Vox Casters) used to call in further barrages. Fun stuff.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
2nd came off like it's a wargame trying to be an RPG or vice versa. I'm of the mind that I like to keep those elements separate.

WH40K 2nd is a RPG?!

Please tell me where I can find character creation? And how many XP do I receive when I kill "monsters"? Never noticed a way to dive with my army into a dungeon in order to loot it's treasures. Also never figured out how my characters could level up. The absence of a DM is also striking. List goes on...

You done?



Seriously, are you ready for legitimate discourse?


I'll assume so, so I'll challenge your apparent lack of reading comprehension skills by pointing out that the line you quoted had me referencing the hybrid nature. I realize this somehow hurt your nerd gear by me somehow cheapening what appears to be the major focus of your life, but don't respond if you're going to cherry pick or ignore my posts.

I am just warming up. Let's get this straight: 2nd 40K had ZERO RPG elements. You were comparing apples with oranges.

The level of abstraction is what I was referring to. Interactions on the micro level vs. on the macro level. The more in depth you get on which system on which side of a vehicle experiences which complication due to damage (Make sure you write that down in your dungeon gui... er, I mean Army notes) vs simple and abstract damage results. Just off the top of my head.


When I think of how wargames I think of macro level interactions. For RPGs I think of micro level interactions. I also picture a difference in abstraction or gradation thereof. I doubt I'm the only one who does.


Also, your skewed idea of what it takes to count as an RPG is laughable. What would you consider Inquisitor to be?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Huh, why do you say that it didn't work well as a wargame? I played the crap out of it (even competitively in some tournaments) and I felt it worked reasonably well.

Two things didn't work that well, and they're big things:

1. Interactivity. During your opponent's turn you basically just removed models. Cover was just a negative to hit, rather than affecting armour saves (or being its own save, like in 3rd-7th), so if you were playing a low armour army, you just removed models during your turn. The only time you got to do anything during your opponent's turn was HTH combat, which brings us to point 2...

2. HTH combat. That system works on a 1v1 mentality, but unit v unit was bad. Now add a third unit into the mix. There's a reason why the 2nd Ed rules work so well with Necromunda, because you've got 10-15 models per side, and not units rushing into one another rolling individual comparative attacks and so on.

I really do like 2nd Ed, but it was too cumbersome for what it was trying to represent, even with the smaller scale (compared to the double-sized 3rd Ed). And then yeah, there was the Hero Hammer of it all, where infantry basically didn't matter.

@1: Cover incurring a -1/2 to hit is fine by me. As for interactivity I've got to point out that Overwatch happened in your opponents turn, as well as taking part in the Psychic phase, in which both players could cast and nullify powers. There was arguably more interaction in the opponents than the current edition. Definitely the potential for much more (I used Overwatch heavily myself).

2: HTH could be cumbersome, but I tended to find the model counts of combatants rather small. But I didn't play Guard/Orks or other high model count armies. So my particular experience there isn't as you describe, but your point is fair.

The hero-hammer aspects got a bit crazy, I'll agree with that. But it was also a choice. Also later editions have their Lash Princes, Draigos, and now Guilliman/Abaddon/Mortarion/Magnus etc soooo. . . I'm just calling that a wash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

. . .
The level of abstraction is what I was referring to. Interactions on the micro level vs. on the macro level.

Level of abstraction would seem to point more towards a skirmish game rather than RPG.

Ah. Yes. Overwatch. The game-killer. The pace destroyer. The momentum vortex.

Player 1: All my stuff's on overwatch. Your turn.
Player 2: Oh. Ok. So's mine then. Your turn.
Player 1: Still on overwatch. Back to you.
Player 2: Ditto. Your turn.

Overwatch in 2nd Ed was horrific. It was horrific in Necromunda too. We made it a shooting skill you had to roll.

Having been playing both 2nd Ed 40k and a Necro 95 campaign recently I can safely say that that Overwatch scenario is a myth, one of those gaming legends that has snowballed in absurdity as the years have passed.

Heh. Well I have rather fond memories of Overwatch because I used it a lot :p. But I also see it just one of the many viable tools in the toolbox during that edition. I was a big user of Blind grenades and Plasma grenades/missiles to for their disruptive capabilities and LOS blocking properties as well.

Also REAL Shuriken Catapults in 2nd ed. A big plus in my book too.