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.
Dysartes wrote: Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.
Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.
@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.
Yea so we add all this unnecessary complexity (and accounting for it in points) for something that matters only 5% of the time. And I would believe that at least one turn per game it mattered far more than that.
But our points are well laid out. Like I said if you liked 4th cool, I just don't get it. I mean I like 6th, and I know a lot of people don't like that edition (like all old editions it needed balance updates like we have now badly).
So long ago but I have only fond memories of 3rd edition. Collected Eldar and Tyranids, which might not have been balanced but I loved the options for the craftworld lists and the custom tyranids. Modern 40K has lost a lot of that kind of fun, and become an almost inflexible tournament game. Even more so comparing it to the original Rogue Trader.
One thing that rekindled my interest in 40K was the craftworlds supplement which featured a seer council/guardian focus for Ulthwe, which I wanted to do at the time but had to give up wargaming to pursue computing. Over two decades later I now have that Ulthwe army, which features only Farseers, Warlocks and Guardian themed units. I really want to add a Wraithknight to the collection for modern 40K games, but I think that might break the theme; it would look too much like an Iyanden army instead...
Dysartes wrote: Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.
Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.
@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.
I think Tau could do it too with multi-trackers.
I am in the camp of "make Ld meaningful" and really like target priority (and I say this as a Guard player, not Necrons or something that had great Ld by default). My thoughts were that split fire could also be available after a Ld test, except for the aformentioned units who could do it by default as a nod to their superior training and/or equipment.
No pre-measuring was the norm until 5th. It had pros and cons. I like the concept, but can also see how it is a problem in more competitive settings when people try to game it in the movement phase etc. Goven that oldhammer is now entirely an optional thing, I think such concerns are less important as it is almost always going to be a game between like-minded friends.
Tau multitrackers were for firing more than 1 weapon. Target lock allowed split fire, but you would only have 1-3 suits per squad and if they had a target lock then only firing a single or twin-linked weapon.
It was a pretty unique thing for them though.
Also some smaller units got target locks to go with markerlights.
Dysartes wrote: Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.
Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.
@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.
Yea so we add all this unnecessary complexity (and accounting for it in points) for something that matters only 5% of the time. And I would believe that at least one turn per game it mattered far more than that.
Haha no, it mattered all the time. It was only difficult to resolve 5% of the time.
Choose target. Not the closest of <type>? Take Leadership test. Simple.
Pinning. One of the very, very few psychological rules in the game.
On paper? I genuinely like it. Barrages and Sniper fire literally pinning the enemy in place is a fantastic head image.
But in practice? Well, I needed to force the rest in the first place. And the relevant weapons were either….kinda lame (very crap AP), or too good (Basilisk make squad go splat. Maybe stopping remnant getting up smol bonus, because most you go splat now). But even if I could do that? You then had to fail a Ld test.
And so, so many units were all but immune due to high leadership married to solid saves? Pinning just never became a particularly viable tool.
When it worked against the right target? Yes it could mess up your opponent but good. But the chances of it working were pretty negligible, so it went to waste.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Dysartes wrote: Pretty sure split fire wasn't a thing in 4th, with the possible exception of Long Fangs.
Yeah that's right. It's one of the few things I would change about those editions. I understand it, design-wise, but I think it felt inaccessible to many, not the least of which was because often the default starter unit was a Tactical Squad, and that was one of the units most punished by no-split-fire.
@xeen: You're really overcomplicating it. It was pretty obvious what the available targets were 95% of the time.
I think Tau could do it too with multi-trackers.
I am in the camp of "make Ld meaningful" and really like target priority (and I say this as a Guard player, not Necrons or something that had great Ld by default). My thoughts were that split fire could also be available after a Ld test, except for the aformentioned units who could do it by default as a nod to their superior training and/or equipment.
No pre-measuring was the norm until 5th. It had pros and cons. I like the concept, but can also see how it is a problem in more competitive settings when people try to game it in the movement phase etc. Goven that oldhammer is now entirely an optional thing, I think such concerns are less important as it is almost always going to be a game between like-minded friends.
Tau multitrackers were for firing more than 1 weapon. Target lock allowed split fire, but you would only have 1-3 suits per squad and if they had a target lock then only firing a single or twin-linked weapon.
It was a pretty unique thing for them though.
Also some smaller units got target locks to go with markerlights.
Ah, thanks for the correction. I usually get those two mixed up.
Pinning. One of the very, very few psychological rules in the game.
On paper? I genuinely like it. Barrages and Sniper fire literally pinning the enemy in place is a fantastic head image.
But in practice? Well, I needed to force the rest in the first place. And the relevant weapons were either….kinda lame (very crap AP), or too good (Basilisk make squad go splat. Maybe stopping remnant getting up smol bonus, because most you go splat now). But even if I could do that? You then had to fail a Ld test.
And so, so many units were all but immune due to high leadership married to solid saves? Pinning just never became a particularly viable tool.
When it worked against the right target? Yes it could mess up your opponent but good. But the chances of it working were pretty negligible, so it went to waste.
I do think pinning was an underutilised part of the game. It was better in 3rd and 4th than later editions though- at least ordnance barrages had a -1 modifier for pinning tests.
It did pair nicely with preliminary bombardments though, which had the chance of pinning defending units for the first turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/03 22:04:50
ChargerIIC wrote: If algae farm paste with a little bit of your grandfather in it isn't Grimdark I don't know what is.
To me, it’s just so symptomatic of 3rd as a whole.
A pretty good idea, implemented horribly.
Snipers, outside of Eldar Pathfinders (or were Rangers the super version?) were….kind of a waste of points. They rarely Pinned anything. And lacked the raw firepower to really influence a battle. They just couldn’t reliably do the job Snipers exist to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You know what I think bugs me most?
2nd Ed was waaaaay overly complex. Lots and lots of rules (like losing penetration over distance for Anti Tank), lots of templates, lots of markers, some of which could and would move around in the End Phase.
Psykers were key, and a jammy phase could and would win you the game.
But for all that nonsense and wobbliness and wonky game design? It. Was. Always. Fun. Whilst rose tinted and our inherent bias for remembering the fun bits as hoomans? It was always a spectacular game.
Blasting the turret off an Immolator, and having it land on a character was complex, but fun. Shooting up a Dreadnought, causing it to stagger back before exploding, was a complex interaction of rules and phases, but fun.
Whilst it had its cheese (oh hi, Eldar!) and more than it’s fair share of wonkiness? There were so, so many moving parts it feels like it was impossible to Mathammer. Like you just took what you fancied, tried your best and hoped the dice gods didn’t have in for you that game.
Again, significant rose tinted glasses on. The sort of glasses prescription that if you don’t normally wear glasses will let you see through time itself, but that’s my impression.
3rd Ed was as bland as overcooked Cauliflower in a cheese sauce made from fat free milk, using vegan, gluten free flour, where the cheese was introduced solely by interpretative dance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/03 22:16:21
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I’d say that that’s certainly an opinion, but it’s definitely one not everyone shares; nor would they share if they tried it. While complex things can certainly be fun complexity is very much anti-fun; it’s just a barrier of entry / action which winds up being ‘you cannot attempt to enjoy this without studying X amount and memorizing Y steps first’. And again, there are fun things which are complex; I enjoy dwarf fortress. But complexity is very much the antithesis of fun itself, which is kind of why Rimworld blew the socks off that genre.
And just before someone gets salty: Complexity and depth are not the same thing. Depth is good but does not require complexity, where as complexity is usually an inelegant and unskilled attempt at adding depth.
In terms of 3rd (and 4th) they definitely didn’t do things perfectly. Those editions had a metric ton of stuff wrong with them and many ideas which weren’t properly implemented / executed. And I’d argue they were still signing more fun than 2nd edition despite that.
Also, the griping lf “this stuff didn’t work well enough” just baffles me. Very few people will tell you that 3rd or 4th were perfect, and most people who play old hammer shore up the edition to make it better. So the complaint that Pinning was a good idea not implemented well enough and therefor it deserves ire, which also uplifting the insanity of 2nd ed mechanics (yay lasguns reducing marine armor; yay virus bombs; yay psykers; yay cards) just baffles me.
2nd Ed was waaaaay overly complex. Lots and lots of rules (like losing penetration over distance for Anti Tank), lots of templates, lots of markers, some of which could and would move around in the End Phase.
Psykers were key, and a jammy phase could and would win you the game.
But for all that nonsense and wobbliness and wonky game design? It. Was. Always. Fun. Whilst rose tinted and our inherent bias for remembering the fun bits as hoomans? It was always a spectacular game.
It's not rose-tinted glasses. I still play 2nd and still enjoy it.
The chief issue was the complexity, and that was being resolved in real time by the players. If one clicks on my 2nd ed. fixes, keep in mind that I did not make them, up, I complied them from what I saw and what other people recommended.
It was a marvelous thing, but players actually came together and were able to achieve consensus on what was wrong, and how to fix it.
It was also the last GW product that included "if both players agree" kind of language. From 3rd ed. on, it was "suck it up, it's legal" and the tournament mentality really took over as a result.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/03 23:40:36
It was also the last GW product that included "if both players agree" kind of language. From 3rd ed. on, it was "suck it up, it's legal" and the tournament mentality really took over as a result.
Oh that's certainly not true. For starters in 3rd there was the "get permission to use" for named characters. And both 3rd and 4th offered a bunch of optional scenarios that were antithetical to tournament play. Iirc 4th had progression mechanics for campaigns, too.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh hell yeah! How could I forget the glorious VDRs! Talk about fun.
All of that was the glorious Last Stand of old 40k.
Instead of missions there were scenarios and that was what the players wanted to use. Fixed GW-endorsed scenarios.
So many games about fighting for table quarters. What a useless exercise that was.
And with the increase of factions, 40k got to experience the joy of the Army of the Month, along with the Oops, Models Aren't Selling Well rules changes.
I really, really tried to like it and my win percentage was awesome. But in the end, I just like 2nd better. De gustibus non disputandum and all that.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh hell yeah! How could I forget the glorious VDRs! Talk about fun.
Until your local Goon abused the intent of those rules to VDR a “flat bed Rhino” purely to deliver Moriar to your line far, far faster than Moriar’s own points cost allowed for.
I’m afraid that, whilst I love the concept of the VDR (Vehicle Design Rules) as a back to Rogue Trader type affair? They, like Tyranid Mutations and the lesser recalled Tyranid Design Rules, only served to demonstrate why fans should be kept far from the levers of in-game power.
No rule of cool. No conversion/kit bash/scratch build first, rules second. Only Mathammer abject boredom, as increasingly sad cases could and would only fixate on what was “optimal”, and how best to take the piss.
Which for me is again, a massive strike against 3rd Ed. Yes heavily informed (probably misinformed for sake of absolute honesty) by the gimps and weirdos on Portent/Warseer who only ever advocated for “pLaY tO WiN” worst opponent ever WAAC Douchery. Nevermind having fun, that only came if you not only won a game, but by the largest possible margin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2024/05/04 01:35:00
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
I mean you could absolutely cheese 2nd ed to bits if you wanted to. It's not true that it was immune to cheese. And those same players who were having fun with 2e could have the same kind of fun with the VDR or TDR.
For sure, those rules weren't meant for a competitive situation, but arguably very little of 40k has ever been meant for that.
Insectum7 wrote: Oh hell yeah! How could I forget the glorious VDRs! Talk about fun.
Until your local Goon abused the intent of those rules to VDR a “flat bed Rhino” purely to deliver Moriar to your line far, far faster than Moriar’s own points cost allowed for.
I’m afraid that, whilst I love the concept of the VDR (Vehicle Design Rules) as a back to Rogue Trader type affair? They, like Tyranid Mutations and the lesser recalled Tyranid Design Rules, only served to demonstrate why fans should be kept far from the levers of in-game power.
No rule of cool. No conversion/kit bash/scratch build first, rules second. Only Mathammer abject boredom, as increasingly sad cases could and would only fixate on what was “optimal”, and how best to take the piss.
Which for me is again, a massive strike against 3rd Ed. Yes heavily informed (probably misinformed for sake of absolute honesty) by the gimps and weirdos on Portent/Warseer who only ever advocated for “pLaY tO WiN” worst opponent ever WAAC Douchery. Nevermind having fun, that only came if you not only won a game, but by the largest possible margin.
A: Using the VDR constructions required opponents permission.
2: People have fun in different ways. Some people liked building ultra competitive lists with likeminded vehicle designs.
and D: No rule of cool, eh? Here's the "Battle Mansion" my brother built. I did the paint job. He made another four or five VDR creations for his Orks (smaller than this one ) and they're all super cool.
I only made two VDR creations: the "Grot wall" which was a guard creation that had AV10 (juuuust enough to be immune to grots) and 20 embedded lasguns) and a twin-CCW dreadnought for my Death Guard because the metal Furioso had just come out and I wanted one. the first one was more of a hypothetical one but I modelled the second and loved it.
I'm always a fan of custom stuff and I really miss being able to do things like that, the lame Land Raider variant rules from a few years back just aren't the same
Da Boss wrote: I mean you could absolutely cheese 2nd ed to bits if you wanted to. It's not true that it was immune to cheese. And those same players who were having fun with 2e could have the same kind of fun with the VDR or TDR.
For sure, those rules weren't meant for a competitive situation, but arguably very little of 40k has ever been meant for that.
It was harder to cheese 2nd because the game was more tactically demanding. There were obvious exploits like the Virus Grenade (which was rightly banned) and psyker powers were a source of abuse, but not everyone bothered to use them. That was a common query, in fact: "Wanna play? Are we using psykers?" People had default lists with and without them.
The issue with 3rd was that it was so abstract that it could be bent into a pretzel, turned inside out, and bent again. GW was fully on board with rules lawyering, at one point clarifying that yes, you could declare a vehicle stationary but also fire its Boosta Rokkits and so it could move without counting as moving and therefore use all its weapons. Oh wait, unless you rolled under a 4, because GW's bizarre randomness fetish.
2nd ed. was the last edition where the rules approximated some sort of simulation. One of the discussions in the game design forum is about mechanics, the mechanics of 3rd I think are what utterly wrecked peoples' opinion of IGOUGO because while in 2nd you could have troops respond in the opponent's turn, in 3rd you were basically a passive observer.
It was just so stupid to have player "time" their movement so that units could move through the open in plain sight of the enemy but because they started in cover and ended in cover, they couldn't be shot at.
This was also the period where the alpha strike came of age, with rhino rushes deciding the game on the first turn.
There was almost zero in terms of tactical decision making. Troops no longer had the option to run, or throw hand grenades rather than engage, or fire pistols for extra accuracy at close range. Actual real-world style maneuvers became impossible to perform.
In 2nd you could have one unit firing on a position, another uning maneuvering to engage in close combat, and a third unit on overwatch, covering the second in case the defenders sortied. In 3rd you just ran everyone at the thing or buried it with buckets of dice.
Because of all the tactical elements, it was much harder to build a WAAC army in 2nd edition. Everyone talks about the vaunted Space Wolves all terminator army, but what could you really do with it? Unless playing on ping-pong table, terrain will screen them, they have no mobility, and therefore can be bypassed, or overrun in detail by opponents with greater mobility.
It was 3rd that brought us the ultra-beardy lists that won just by showing up, and that was when tournament prep because a major focus of the game. I remember people arguing that cheaty lists weren't a problem because they won't win in a tournament setting.
Because the game was dumbed down with vastly fewer decision points for the players, mathhammer became preponderant and I admit I was one of the worst offenders, losing only two games with my Vanilla Marines over several years, (making me something of a local legend). The thing was, it was all formulaic. The battlefields all had less terrain, the scenarios everyone wanted to play were the same, so the formula was simply to load up on AP (including Razorbacks), conduct a slow retreat until the enemy was within reach of Captain Whirlingdeath and that's the game. I had to switch armies because it was so dull and predictable but my shiny new IG guys (Praetorians in metal, I had a decent job and no kids) were just as dull, only in different ways.
Then I tried Chaos Marines. Same result.
Every army was like that. People were grinding out lists, modding them with each update, and it was just setup and roll the dice. So I quit and after a few years, got into 2nd, where I remain happy.
Ok . . . But if "abuse" is your qualifier the same could be said about the entirety of 2nd edition, despite what Commissar is saying. 2nd was very easy to abuse, and I'd argue easier than 3rd.
2nd had a lot of options. One benefit of this was that there were many ways to approach a given issue. But all those options also meant there were many ways to WAAC the very same system. I was totally "That Guy" in 2nd, and played against many of "Those Guys". Swarms of Discs of Tzeentch. Armies of 100 Hormagaunts. Multiple invuln saves stacked on characters, walls of Rhinos, Lascannon Spam on Mega Armored Orks, Plasma missile fusillades, dirty, dirty Exarchs, Pulsa Rokkit spam, Jump Pack lvl 4 psyker Inquisitors casting Vortex through units, even an army spamming Techmarines to act as individual model screens, because you had to target the closest unit. We tore the hell out of that system.
The lessons of both 2nd and 3rd are the same. Play with like minded people, play with enough terrain, play with mission variation.
2nd Ed had so much random and weird and wonky as a result of its overly complex rules? Mathammer required a degree in advanced physics. I was only ever one specific hit on a vehicle and then some favourable randomised rolls for sending its turret flying off and squishing your commander.
3rd, as is my main bugbear, overly simplified it all. And that for me is where the rot set in. Folk not interested in the spectacle, but the outcome. Those for whom a victory wasn’t a victory unless it was by the largest possible margin.
And that’s not to knock those hobbyists who enjoy the competitive scene.
Rather it’s when those on the most extreme of that end of the hobby spectrum made it all a chore. Those who rendered down all aspect of chance to a pathetic equation, and then dared to claim the game was broken when you got lucky and wrecked their army by using stuff they’d long since declared ‘sub optimal’ to kick their teeth down the throat.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Folk not interested in the spectacle, but the outcome. Those for whom a victory wasn’t a victory unless it was by the largest possible margin.
If you think those people didn't exist in 2nd then you are horribly, horribly wrong.
Insectum7 wrote: Ok . . . But if "abuse" is your qualifier the same could be said about the entirety of 2nd edition, despite what Commissar is saying. 2nd was very easy to abuse, and I'd argue easier than 3rd.
I'm going to call you out on this, because it's manifestly not true, and you're going to prove it for me.
2nd had a lot of options. One benefit of this was that there were many ways to approach a given issue. But all those options also meant there were many ways to WAAC the very same system. I was totally "That Guy" in 2nd, and played against many of "Those Guys". Swarms of Discs of Tzeentch. Armies of 100 Hormagaunts.
Hormaguants were famously only available inmetal. Same with Discs of Tzeentch. Unless you were spitting out proxies like Weimar Republic Reichmarks, you spent a fortune to do that. This is not the "own" you think it is.
Multiple invuln saves stacked on characters, walls of Rhinos, Lascannon Spam on Mega Armored Orks, Plasma missile fusillades, dirty, dirty Exarchs, Pulsa Rokkit spam, Jump Pack lvl 4 psyker Inquisitors casting Vortex through units, even an army spamming Techmarines to act as individual model screens, because you had to target the closest unit. We tore the hell out of that system.
Yeah, that's your other admission: you were fully embracing the WAAC concept. The thing was, you had to work a lot harder for it in 2nd, didn't you? How much did all those Techmarines cost?
The lessons of both 2nd and 3rd are the same. Play with like minded people, play with enough terrain, play with mission variation.
You've just shown that they aren't. You could spam 3rd edition with little more than the contents of two starter boxes, some rhinos and black and white paint. To do what you did meant blowing a fortune on models. Not even remotely the same thing.
As I've noted (and you haven't denied this) 2nd had more tactical options, so even your WAAC-y armies could have been brought up short without proper use and care.
A squad in 2nd has multiple options. It can move and shoot, or run, or assault, or go on overwatch, or hide. It could also throw grenades or use pistols instead of primary weapons.
The 3rd edition stripped all this out, making min-maxing so easy that a child could do it. As the Doc correctly noted, trying to calculate out a 2nd ed. army like that was a nightmare.
Oh, you've got a level 4 psyker who is going to wreak havoc with Ultimate Force? Say hello to my Demonic Attack card, smart guy. Oh, you have a Vortex Grenade? Meet my Detonator.
The reason 2nd was balanced was because everything was so deadly that you couldn't reliably munchkin your way to victory.
Let me put it this way: in all my games of 2nd (including recent ones), I have never seen armies so thoroughly curb-stomped on turn one as I did in 3rd, and apparently this practice continues to the present day.
Younger folks may not realize this, but every army had a thing called a Strategy Rating, which was added to the die roll to determined who got to move first. Space Marines got a 5, Tyranids a 1, and so on. So what this meant was that both sides set up knowing who was likely to go first.
That was okay, because units could start hidden, terrain was much more effective, and so on.
It was 3rd edition that introduced the alpha strike, which was another reason for me to quit.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2024/05/04 21:48:58
Ok right. Like, whilst I agree with and support CvT’s critique it’s all getting overly heavy, yeah?
So let’s all take a nice deep breath and get back to vigorous but polite conversation, yeah? If you can’t respect the next person, you can’t respect yourself. Or something.
Good, deep breaths.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Second edition was a war game trying to be a role playing game or a role playing game trying to be a war game which is what created all of its problems. Third edition had the benefit of knowing exactly what it was and the people who really detest 3rd edition are the ones who got their role playing game left behind.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Ok right. Like, whilst I agree with and support CvT’s critique it’s all getting overly heavy, yeah?
I should think that Insectum7 knows from prior interactions that I mean no disrespect in my spirited engagement, but I will make that clear so that there is no misunderstanding.
Just Tony wrote: Second edition was a war game trying to be a role playing game or a role playing game trying to be a war game which is what created all of its problems. Third edition had the benefit of knowing exactly what it was and the people who really detest 3rd edition are the ones who got their role playing game left behind.
I think 2nd - especially in the stripped down mode linked in my sig - was closer to a true wargame than anything that came after. It features real wargame mechanics, like hidden units, overwatch, and important decision points like whether to conduct an actual assault or to throw grenades.
Seriously, one can't really have a squad-level game without some form of overwatch. Third edition didn't, and so I rate it as an inferior wargame design.
) and they're all super cool.
