Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2018/02/21 14:51:41
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Daemonic Dreadnought
|
This conversation came up at my FLGS last night, games ground to a halt as the debate heated up.
How would you characterize each edition of 40k? What was the defining point in the meta, either for the edition itself or for the army you care about?
Here's some initial thoughts to get you started. Feel free to offer ideas about editions you never played, but be clear about the fact it was before your time.
1st - Age of Strife. Redacted.
2nd - Golden Age of Fluff: 40k Rulebook, Realms of Chaos, 'Ere We Go. Squats. White Dwarf actually had content. Underlying mechanical problems with game create basis for new editions, giving rise to the ideal of 'balance.' Tyranids, Eldar, CSM Daemon Bombs, and Terminators ruled the day.
3rd - Grimdark resplendent. Age of Codexes begins, bringing Independent Characters with it. Iron Warriors had their time as the toughest army in the game and Monolith spam became a valid tactic. Infantry and vehicles seemed to mix well overall and many things about this edition could be considered pleasant.
4th - Introduction of FOCs. Faction bloat. Rhino Rush became a thing. Mathhammer emerged in response to Falcon Grav Tanks, which would only be hit (infrequently) with S8 or higher weapons.
5th - Minimize rules, streamline accessories, Matt Ward earns his wings.
6th - Power creep edition: D-weapons, flyers, deathstars. Shooting and psychic phases become more important than everything else. Eldar and Tau rule the day, giving rise to Taudar. Permanently nerf all Ork armies.
7th - 6th edition expansion pack. DLC supplements for individual units become a thing.
8th - Streamline the rules in a way that changes the mechanics. Throw out LOS, most cover, and AV in favor of pace of play. Cheap infantry are more effective then MEQ and multi-wound weapons become common.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 14:53:57
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
1st: Role-playing.
2nd: Lore heaven, still 85% Role-Play
3rd: Windfall.
4-7th: Failed windfall recovery.
8th: Too early to tell.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 15:10:36
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Of the ones I've played: 6th: for every ten minutes of decision making and dice rolling, spend 20 minutes working out what the rules say. Take some time out to re-explain psychic powers yet again. 7th: for every ten minutes of decision making and dice rolling, spend 15 minutes working out what the rules say. Stress a bit about how you can't win against the invisible deathstar. 8th: for every ten minutes of dice rolling, glance at the rules once. Eat some Auntie Anne's pretzels and drink a Fanta. Have some fun and de-stress.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 15:11:17
iGuy91 wrote:You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote:You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote:Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming? |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 15:20:43
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
Hot damn I love Auntie Anne's pretzels...if those were present, all editions of 40K would be glorious.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 15:20:43
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
Picturesque.
Important parts are missing (like the cover issue, withdrawal from cc) , GW goes over the top with strategems, and alpha-strikes are everywhere.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 16:04:32
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
|
8th ed. FAQ'ed all to hell.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 16:06:57
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
6 - Not great but not as bad as people make out.
7 - Kind of a sidestep but just got worse and worse after decurions hit.
8th - Overhyped and too sigmary.
|
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 16:58:42
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
RT - skirmish / RPG
2nd - attempt to introduce mass combat to skirmish ruleset
3rd - attempt to introduce skirmish-style unit customisation to mass combat ruleset
4th - several different phases of codex design and game balance of 2-3 books each trying to find a good compromise point to balance the game around
5th - throwing away anything they might have learned from 4th with rampant power-creeping and a few poorly thought out but easily fixable core rule issues that were left unaddressed.
6th - mini-apocalypse 40k
7th - pay to win
8th - too soon to say, but the 30k-like marine focus, charging for errata, and continued faction fragmentation is a tad concerning.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 20:05:29
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
1. Skirmish
2. Herohammer
3. Rhino Rush
4. Skimmer rule
5. Leaf blower
6. Promising
7. Formation madness
8. Age of Errata
|
I stand between the darkness and the light. Between the candle and the star. |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 20:10:27
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
1) Dungeons and... Space Marines?
2) Beer and Powerfists
3) Let's play a Wargame
4) Huh. This wargame rules thing is tougher than we thought.
5) Huh. Balence is also a difficult thing.
6) [Never played 6th]
7) And you get a Codex! And you get a Codex! And you get a Codex...
8) And you get some errata, and you get some errata and you get some errata! Also Terrain goes big, or goes home,
|
Disclaimer - I am a Games Workshop Shareholder. |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 20:41:13
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine
Sacratomato
|
Been playing since Rogue Trader days. I like a lot of the views of each edition above, but one things just kills me to the core...................For years players bitched and complained about how long GW took to fix rules mistakes, some rules wouldn't be fixed for several editions.
Now I see several views that 8th is heavy on FAQs and Errata. Well, which do you want, because you aren't getting both.
1-2nd - Fun, but it was hard to find gaming groups back then. It was more about the lore and painting.
3rd - if I remember correctly still had Terminators without 5++ (I lost so many of my Blood Angel Termies to Plasma fire back then!)
5th - Ahh, the sweet spot! My favorite edition even with the heavy use of Parking lot list building.....(My IG were guilty of this!)
6-7th: Holy mother $#@!&
8th - I like it so far...not all of it, but most.
|
70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of the people that produce false statistics 54% of the time that they produce them. |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 20:43:23
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
United Kingdom
|
1. Awkward rules and less grim setting.
2. Awful.
3. First step on the right path.
4. Good edition but suffered from OP FW additions.
5. Fantastic rules set. One of the better ones.
6. More complication. Lost some of what made 5th enjoyable.
7. Excellent system. Bloated but able to consolidate everything nicely. Needed to be better written however.
8. A true godsend! Simplified but still capable of providing a fantastic game. Much better rules set but still needs a few tweaks (terrain..etc).
|
40k: Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
T9A: Vampire Covenants 2060pts. |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 20:58:20
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets
|
6th - 5th being twisted and stretched to fit in Apoc stuff.
7th - the edition where GW sold more rule supplements than actual models.
8th - an attempt to make an edition by pulling suggestions out of a box with one hand, letting Marketing change one sentence in the suggestion at random, then adding it to the new rules. Beginning was marked by major plot advancement, too early to see if it continues.
|
40k drinking game: take a shot everytime a book references Skitarii using transports.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 21:15:11
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Clousseau
|
1st and 2nd - i never played
3rd - the age of the rhino rush and of the eldar starcannon. Later the 3.5 codex. This is what I consider "the golden age".
4th - the age of the leaf blower, the static parking lot, the beginning of the 3.5 chaos dex dominating turning into the 4th edition bland chaos codex that saw the next decade-plus for chaos be abysmally vanilla and dull.
5th - the age of draigo lolz and nob bikerz and the necron. For me, this was the worst edition ever, not because of the rules of the edition, but because 1 out of every 2 or 3 games for me was playing against Draigo and his paladins.
6th - brought me back to 40k for a bit. Started off swell. Ended up turning into...
7th edition - the 2nd worst time I've ever had in 40k, closely behind draigo days. The age of you get all the free stuff added to your army and points don't really mean much. Take this formation for free stuff, summon all that stuff for free stuff. FREE FREE FREE. Rules bloat became bloated for the bloat.
8th edition - the board game edition of 40k. Take modern ccg design, mix it with board game mechanics, strip out wargaming complexities, and you have current 40k. Current gen of gamers love the list building focus of this edition, but far too abstract for me to really get into it like I got into 3rd - 4th edition.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 22:41:17
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
Da-Rock wrote:Been playing since Rogue Trader days. I like a lot of the views of each edition above, but one things just kills me to the core...................For years players bitched and complained about how long GW took to fix rules mistakes, some rules wouldn't be fixed for several editions.
Now I see several views that 8th is heavy on FAQs and Errata. Well, which do you want, because you aren't getting both.
1-2nd - Fun, but it was hard to find gaming groups back then. It was more about the lore and painting.
3rd - if I remember correctly still had Terminators without 5++ (I lost so many of my Blood Angel Termies to Plasma fire back then!)
5th - Ahh, the sweet spot! My favorite edition even with the heavy use of Parking lot list building.....(My IG were guilty of this!)
6-7th: Holy mother $#@!&
8th - I like it so far...not all of it, but most.
I definitely could be remembering incorrectly, but I think that in 3rd terminators had invulnerable saves, and invulnerable saves were still taken in addition to armor saves. It's been a loooong time though.
|
2500 pts Raven Guard, painted |
|
|
|
2018/02/21 22:56:22
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Witch Hunter in the Shadows
|
Porphyrius wrote:I definitely could be remembering incorrectly, but I think that in 3rd terminators had invulnerable saves, and invulnerable saves were still taken in addition to armor saves. It's been a loooong time though.
It was introduced during 3rd in chapter approved.
You only got the one save (stacked saves were 2nd ed)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/21 22:56:49
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 23:15:19
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
1-4 cant say
5-7 age of great news kirby give me the money
8th age of roundtree and the increased accessibility for new blood rules wise.
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 23:17:36
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Clousseau
|
Yeah in 3rd for most of 3rd terminators did NOT have inv saves. No one ever took them so in the chapter approved they added the inv save. They were rarely taken after that as well because back then everything was packing power weapons and they were too expensive to basically only have a 5+ save.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/21 23:23:44
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
From the perspective of someone who started in 4th, and has been playing ever since
4th: Great fun, easy to pick up, had lots of boogeyman units but wasn't awful in that regard (at least to me), golden age of CQC
5th: Fast to play, played better at smaller game sizes, close combat no longer felt completely overbearing if a nasty unit made your backline, but remained a dominant choice in casual games.
6th: USR bloat, but most for decent reasons. CQC started to really feel underpowered and no longer worth trying to bother with, but could be made to work if you had the tools.
7th: SPACE MAAAAGIC. Felt pretty good, similar CQC problems as 6th but more ways to mitigate them with adjustments to base USRs and altered terrain rules. Then formations happened. Formations were a mistake. Golden Age of defender's advantage versus attacks.
8th: Massive cleanup, probably too far. Absolutely Massive pendulum swing in the favor of the attacker (definitely too far, but that's my opinion), Alpha strike issues, but the game in general returns to the fun spirit and game speed that was there in 4th. Missing a few things that would make it the golden bullet edition.
Honestly 7th was the best of them all, but only BEFORE the rise of the decurion and formations everywhere. If they hadn't have done a race to the bottom on who can ignore the most USRs it would have been far better. Part of this can be seen in the Horus Heresy rulesets, where a lot of care was taken to use base book USRs wherever possible.
Tbqfh, 7th edition core and taking some of the better parts of 8th (close combat rules relacing initiative scores, toned-down psystuff, and defender removing casualties, detachments/strats instead of 'free rules' formations) would be the best version of 40k to ever exist.
Even funnier: they could still do this with an 8.5 ed:
Revamp how old template weapons function
Bring back scattering deepstrike to amplify risk vs reward on these units
Turn common datasheet rules into a condensed set of USRs, and make a card set with them printed on (similar to MTG's keywords cards for judges reference)
Revamp and expand terrain rules, return cover to being a separate save that AP values do not work against, but can never be better than 3+, retain cover providing +1 vs AP, allow defender to choose save
|
|
|
|
2018/02/22 00:27:23
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Ancient Chaos Terminator
Surfing the Tervigon Wave...on a baby.
|
1st - So we want to make a Roleplaying Game...but with miniatures. And take the piss out of the government. Here you go.
2nd - So we realised you guys were playing this as a skirmish game. So here you go.
3rd- So we realised you guys were playing this as a wargame. So we streamlined it.
4th - We revamped the wargame. We added some crunch back!
5th to 7th - MORE CRUNCH. Wait, no....no! What monster have we made? We've sinned against humanity! This bloated abomination will destroy us all....wait...wait...it speaks...
"Tau.....dar...."
8th - So we burned it down and decided to start again. Our bad.
|
Now only a CSM player. |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 02:25:50
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I started playing around early 3rd edition and only recently started teaching myself 2nd edition, so my characterizations are modified from that accordingly.
Early 3rd edition was fairly bland. I started with Dark Eldar because they were in the starter box alongside Marines, but the initial Space Marine, Guard and Chaos Codexes were paperslip-thin with minimal oomph to them. Likewise, Transports were dreadfully abstracted as troops could disembark from anywhere, and "half the models in a transport" could shoot. It wasn't until Codex Armageddon and Chapter Approved came out that the rules for access and fire points were first introduced. Thus, I consider "early 3rd" to be its own thing.
Late 3rd is when you got the infamous Pete Haines Chaos Codex, Guard with Doctrines, Daemonhunters and Witchhunters. The internal balance may have been off, but the "your dudes" customization was incredible; I always have a soft spot for being able to play "dress-up" and give sergeants "trademark items" or other little bits of distinguishing bling. Early 4th was a continuation of this, with Chapter Trait Space Marines, and super-customizable Carnifexes, but late 4th came back with "no more options" and the painfully-written Gav Thorpe Chaos Codex that had "Greater Daemons" and "Lesser Daemons."
I played Orks in 5th ed, and remember 5th being Metal Box-hammer. Sure, there was the odd infantry list here and there like Chumbalaya's Loganwing or Blackmoor's Draigowing, but this was the edition of massed Razorbacks or Mechvets. A lot of this dealt with the vehicles not having Hull Points, vehicle damage charts being made more forgiving, and Emergency Disembark no longer truly being a thing unless you were wrecked; most important though was the need to get troops to midfield to actually score.
I skipped 6th. 6th overcorrected Mech from 5th; between Flyers and Hull Points, metal boxes became fragile enough, but the real kicker was the fact that only Troops that were not in a vehicle could score, while other unit types could score depending on mission. Because this was also the edition that introduced the Heldrake, this meant that armies tended to gravitate either towards static gunlines or the odd Serpentspam/Riptide list where troops came in from Reserve after the fact. IIRC, the most "competitive" netlist for Chaos I saw for 6th boiled down to: "Typhus, Plague Zombies, and Heldrakes. Final destination." Oh, and an allied Screamerstar too.
7th I feel actually corrected a lot of tiny things I disliked about 6th. Granted, it introduced things that I disliked, including Unbound and Maelstrom and making Lords of War a standard option, but I felt the rules for Challenges, Shooting, and Psykers were cleaner overall; having a single Phase was simpler than remembering "Blessings and Maledictions before the move phase, Witchfires in the shooting phase, Force in the Assault Phase," from a bookkeeping perspective. It also added Objective Secured, made Jink/Go to Ground cleaner overall ("active decisions" beat "passive effects", while Pinning preventing Overwatch only makes sense).
As I learn my way around 2nd edition, the main things I am finding out are: Vehicles are deathtraps, the game has a lot of "use common sense" fuzzy logic, and there are a lot of "emergent" moving parts that I feel the later games lack. In many ways, it looks like the sort of game that if it were cleaned up, would actually be an excellent game, but there are a lot of rough patches that are from it being an early 90s GW product.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/22 02:59:45
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
|
1st - 5th
The Rat Pack. A bunch of smooth cats who can really sing and get all the ladies. Alternatively, beer swilling space soldier hooligans, some half naked, turn into monks.
6th
Robert Downey Jr. You know he is talented but the cocaine and hookers make you feel like hiring him would be fun but expensive. This is where I began my 40k addiction... er uh, hobby.
7th
Tony Stark. You KNEW hiring Robert was a bad idea! Was fun but now you've got a kilo of China white in your backseat and Rob is stuffing a corpse into the trunk. You hear sirens approaching...
8th
George Foreman. This prize fighter has been through a lot and even though he is kinda simple and often confusing to talk to, he was a championship boxer and can still throw a punch. And make a damn fine grill too.
|
Gets along better with animals... Go figure. |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 03:32:50
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant
|
I am a new player who joined in 8th, so here's my retrospective look at what I think the editions have been like!
1st
Much like DND, first edition was mostly a no man's land.
2nd
Fluff dominates, the looming threat of metagaming has yet to rear its ugly head.
3rd
An attempt. It made the game bigger, and ultimately kept the ball rolling on the right path, as 2nd edition would have just stagnated the system in a niche.
4th
Weirdly, I havent seen much at all about this edition, but it seems okay from the little things ive seen.
5th
As good, if not better than 2nd. What many would consider a golden age for the game, in terms of gameplay.
6th
The meta hammer long dropped, but it seems to be getting heavier and heavier on the game itself. New ways to squeeze money are implmeneted.
7th
A truly grim dark universe. Formations bloat the system, rules sets dominate and force meta game changes (and force players to buy more), and the game becomes far too complicated.
8th
AGE OF SIG-I mean. I have bias for this edition for obvious reasons, but I think the simplicity MAJORLY helped my ability to get into the game.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/22 03:54:46
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade
|
3rd - abstract edition. 30 minutes before every game to debrief on what level each terrain piece was.
4th - Rhino Rush
5th - Melta edition. Removed Rhino Rush but buffed vehicles to becoming the core of every list. Each table usually looked like Monday morning peak hour on the M31.
6th - Taudar and Riptide wings.
7th - Invisible Deathstar edition. Learn a new language to understand all the different CAD's and formations. DLC edition being drip fed every month to chase the new hotness.
8th - mostly a reboot. Removed hundreds of pages of rules in favour of a streamlined gaming system. My favourite so far.
|
"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.
To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle
5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 | |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 04:32:39
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Screaming Shining Spear
|
1st I only heard stories of the over the top models.
2nd the most fun....way too much heavy weapon reliance and cc was a total disaster.
3rd fallback hell or just swamp in cc but a great idea with the FoC. Units were too stripped down and boring.
4th-7th did not play. Read some of it and seemed complicated for the sake of complexity.
8th a meager attempt at combining 3rd and 2nd...still falls short. They are limited due to trying to put too many units on the board AND a fast game. Scale it back down....add more nuances like vehicle facing, etc and it can be just right.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/22 04:33:19
koooaei wrote:We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice. |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 05:42:25
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
1. Damn these models are sweet, what do you mean it is a game?
2 - zomg a game, watch my hero wreck your world. It is all about the bugs.
3 - zomg it is a war game now, sweet, pew pew,.. hmm, not happy with this codex...
4 - okay, not sure about this, but ok, WTF did you do with my nids? forget it i am done off to other things
5 - nope, back to warmachine.
6 - nope, still warmachine
7 - taudar in da house, pew pew b*$#hes, you can't see me. Ok this is a fun reoccurring detour back to warmachine.
8 - well the index meta was bland, but fairly balanced. The index codex meta is a bloody mess. But why are we playing are of sigmar with 40k models?
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/02/22 05:58:10
In war there is poetry; in death, release. |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 10:40:09
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Angered Reaver Arena Champion
|
* 2nd Edition: The RPG almost-anything-can-happen version.
* 3rd Edition: This-is-actually-a-wargame Years.
* 4th Edition: The Gap Years
* 5th Edition: The Ward Years.
* 6th Edition: I heard you liked Eldar. You now like Eldar. Just play Eldar. Add some Tau for spice.
* 7th Edition: I heard you wanted formations so we made some broken ones just for you. Also, you remember that you liked Eldar? Well, have some scatter lasers.
* 8th Edition: We apologize for the Kirby years and are trying to do better. Have a streamlined system that is flawed because we've never taken balancing seriously before.
On a personal note I love 8th. It's the best system so far, combining what they've learned from AoS with what they've learned from the unholy mess that is 7th. They can still screw it up though.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/22 12:41:50
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Only those I played:
2nd: a game to love or hate; I loved it for the feel, the lore, the detail and casual fun; addictively immersive; tournaments and "serious" play were awful experience;
3rd: a game to love or hate: I hated it, a castrated and reorganised beyond recognition, Exodites are gone, Eldar Pirates twisted into BDSM caricature; tournaments and "serious" play were the only way to (barely) enjoy this bland game, so I quit before 3.5 happened
7th: a game to love or hate: I return to a game much more akin to 2nd ed but with a lot of factions and models to get acquaintance with; Harlequins are now their own subfaction, Exodites still missing, but with so much plastics at hand easily convertable; once again it is about the story behind the play, not about the actual play. I love it for exactly same reason competetive players hate it - huge variety and amount of material to sink into and have fun with, but requires a lot of hard work to be made actually playable with differently tiered factions.
8th: a game to love or hate; for me it's 2nd-to-3rd deja vu; once again castrated and mutilated, CCG-with-minis-and-a-board blobhammer with focus on the player at expense of immersion. Entirely not my cup of tea.
A fun fact: two games widely considered to be the most ballanced GW games (original Necromunda and Horus Heresy) are based on the two most hated core rulesets in history of competetive 40K - 2nd and 7th. At the same time, those two rulesets provide the most immersive experiences of 40K if you can somehow manage to field two ballanced and not-over-the-top forces on a single table.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/22 14:21:23
Subject: How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
Only those played:
3rd: nice Rhino rush
4th: assault cannon goody
5th: almost GT winning
6th: too short, what a pity
7th: formation spam
8th: not deep enough
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
|
|
2018/02/22 15:27:02
Subject: Re:How would you characterize each edition?
|
|
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon
|
1-2 did non play
3rd best starter set. Proper models and full rule book.
4th killteam, cities of death
5th wound allocation sheenanigans.
6th challenges in close combat.
7th formation provides free OP upgrades to some players
8th command points and codex provides free upgrades to some players...
|
Brutal, but kunning! |
|
|
|
|