<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "When was the "peak" of different games for you?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/7.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net When was the "peak" of different games for you?
A lot of people say it's your first edition of a game that is your favourite, but for me that wasn't really the case.
40K - started in 2e and had a lot of fun, but I think the peak of the game for me was late 4e-early 5e, and if I had to pick one, I'd pick early 5e before the codex releases made it a bit less fun to play. The 3e system had matured into something pretty complete, I had a really fun codex in the late 4e Ork codex and I was having a blast playing the game with loads of build variety and new kits to play with. 6e and 7e bloated the system out without improving it, and introduced formations and superheavies as core game concepts and I really hate formations especially.
WFB - Started in 5e and again, had a lot of fun, though even I as a teen could see that my Slann Mage Priest was crazy over-powered. I think late 6e, when all the books were out, was the best time. I had so much fun playing narrative and siege games back then and although 40K was by far more popular I was really in love with the Old World. I was really optimistic about 7e and liked it at first, but the infamous trio of bad army books really soured me on the edition sadly. I was again optimistic for 8e but just a mix of things really put me off - stupid terrain rules, overpowered magic, massive unwieldy units...
Old World it seems to me is not an improvement on any of these, and they increased the base sizes so petulantly I'm not even gonna give it a fair go!
Warmachine and Hordes - I was an early adopter of this locally, got in in 1e. 2e was by far the best version of the game for me, though late in the edition they started introducing "theme lists" which were their version of formations and they were really bad. But you could just ignore them which I did. Really tight, fun game where I felt I could build a list from pretty much anything and it was down to how cleverly I used it on the table whether I won or not. 3e doubled down on the stuff I wasn't liking in late 2e, and introduced really massive models I didn't feel fit with the game and I dropped it, sadly. Really a dramatic fumble - that game was riding high and they just messed up.
Kings of War - I started again in 1e, but didn't get much of a chance to play. 2e I think is the best version of this for me - still has very generic WFB inspired armies, allows historical armies, and eventually got pretty decent siege rules. It's got better balance than any edition of WFB despite having some issues with flying units and so on. 3e leaned more into Mantic's own miniatures and also into formations (again, what is with these awful trends that seem to sweep our hobby) and seemed to over-complicate the game whose core strength was simplicity. 4e is continuing that trend, though it is a bit simpler than it was I think. Also, I must say, the enthusiasm in the community for very sparse multibases really hurts the look of the game - I much prefer a packed block of troops to a scattering of dudes clambering over a ruin or something, because it is weird to have large scenery pieces moving around a battlefield where they don't fit in.
LOTR - The Big Blue Book version is my first version, and it's the only case where that's my favourite version as well. The Hobbit added too much silliness and fiddlyness and MESBG leans heavily into "formation" style fixed lists that you might be seeing are kind of a bugbear of mine. I think the Big Blue Book is basically perfect as it goes.
One Page Rules - Very similar to KoW, I found that after 2.5 they got too tied up in their own ideas and stopped being as good as a way to use my existing collection, and they seemed to be adding more and more complexity to a system whose virtue was simplicity, so I downloaded my PDFs and only play 2.5.

I think that's all the games with multiple editions that I play - I mean I love mordheim, OG Necromunda, Battlefleet Gothic and a smattering of other games which are one off books, but those are the ones that I followed from edition to edition and eventually settled on a "favourite" from.

I'd be really curious to hear from others who've been through many edition changes, and the reasons why you like or dislike certain things. I'd especially be interested to hear about stuff I haven't experienced myself - later editions of 40K, Age of Sigmar as a whole deal (that's an interesting one because it changed so much!) and things like Kill Team and Warcry.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814845.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814845.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you? BattleTech, I had no mechs... just some planes, Long Tom artillery and a handful of Savannah Masters.

I can't tell you what edition it was, but people still played with LAMs and Robotech minis.

☆☆☆

40k I played from 3rd to 6th, and then returned for 9th Edition. I haven't seen the nightmare that was 7th for myself, only heard the stories from around the campfire.

☆☆☆

I played all the specialist games, Necromunda, BFG, Inquisitor, Mordheim... except Blood Bowl... not sure why.

☆☆☆

Played the hell out of Babylon 5 Wars and Fleet Action. Around that time I also annoyed the feth out of others in Flames of War... no matter what theater of war, I always enjoyed a good impossible to kill Naval Bombardment.

☆☆☆

Ugh. Warmachine. I remember the promises the company made when it first came out, how they blasted GW for making plastic models and having a game system where Infantry could kill tanks.

Then they threw that all away, and I stopped playing.

☆☆☆

I've only seen OPR mentioned online or offhandedly discussed between people playing Kill Team or 40k. I've never seen anyone actually play it.

☆☆☆

Looking back, I'd say the late 90's were the best years of Wargames. We had new stuff, old stuff, and plenty of good times.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814851.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814851.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? OP and postulate that usually a game is best after it has seen some polishing but before they start changing the things you picked the game up for in the first place, so usually 2nd edition.

It is a sad reality that sales tend to stagnate when quality peaks and everyone who likes the game already has everything they need, so they start messing it up chasing broader appeal.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814854.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814854.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
So is it really the rules I recall fondly, or the good company during the games?

For instance, I prefer my narrative stuff. Writing a campaign, or a self-developing narrative game like Necromunda or Mordheim.

So, when I’ve gathered a merry band of fellow idiots happily on the same wavelength? I’m going to have a better and more fondly remembered experience than where things are played more competitively.

Likewise, if someone likes their competitive play and really gets a kick out of really pushing their skills and knowledge, are they going to look back fondly on a heavily narrative campaign I ran? I’d wager probably not.

But, 2nd Edition Space Marine. It was the most affordable game for a teenage oik, and looked superb. And as all my opponents at the time were around the same place on the learning curve? We had a great time. Everyone could add to their army at pretty much pocket money prices. Especially if like a sensible teenage oik, you didn’t fully man your stands!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814869.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814869.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? Warmachine. Undoubtably its best times were Mk2, when there was so much faith in the game and drive to make it better and better. The community the tournaments everything was peak.

Mk3 by comparison falls far short of that but not because of the game itself. Honestly, I find Mk2 to be kind of garbage by comparison. The big stompy robots had non-functional rules and a couple factions got to have all the fun the game had to offer while the rest.... eh? Mk3 to me was a far better game but really seemed to hit at time when people had had enough of Warmachine and were looking for other things.

As for other games. 40k is something where 10th is the first time I've enjoyed it in any real capacity and we have a great community so that's kind of a no brainer.

Malifaux and Infinity are kind of in an odd place for me. I would say that the excitement around both was probably in the M2E and N3 eras followed by really successful launches of M3E and N4 that got a lot of people into the game but both have suffered from being 3rd or 4th favorites without a real champion. Their latest editions have been weird for me personally as their core rules I think are great by the model rules for the stuff that excites me has not gotten me terribly excited.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814870.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814870.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
Some of the stuff I regularly play;

WHFB - My favorite is 3e. Still play it about once/twice a year. Though I did have plenty of fun 4th-6th. Not sure what my opinion on what Old World (aka 9th ed amongst those I play with) is yet as I've only played about 7 games.

Age of Sigmar - my favorite is 3rd ed. This current edition? They just crapped all over the Allies rules & I don't really like how forces are constructed.

40k? I may have started in RT. But my favorite editions/eras are tied: 3-5th & 9th/10th.

Flames of War (WWII) - 3rd edition. Though 4th is ok & I've had plenty of fun, I still have more options in 3rd than I have in 4th even after all these years of this edition.

Bolt Action - All editions are good

BattleTech - It's....Battletech. It hasn't drastically changed (mechanically) since the day I picked it up back in the 80s. Sure, a few tweaks here & there, but it's nothing like 40k wich has been at least 4 almost completely different games since I started. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814880.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814880.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40k. It had issues, but a solid core.

For battletech I liked it with the first lost tech upgrade, but before the clans returned.

Car Wars my group ended up restricting to the first 2 Uncle Al’s catalogs. The later ones just started getting crazy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814890.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11814890.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40k - you COULD build a ridiculous machine - but it would also cost ridiculous points - it seemed fairly balanced, and allow you to go nuts if you wanted to.

In the same vein, 4th edition Tyranids (the super customisable one). It seemed to capture exactly what Tyranids would do - adapt & evolve. Of course, making my army stronger/better didn't exactly hurt either....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815161.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815161.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 LunarSol wrote:
There's often a difference between when the game is at its best and when the experience of the game is at its best. I'll pick on the obvious example of Warmachine. Undoubtably its best times were Mk2, when there was so much faith in the game and drive to make it better and better. The community the tournaments everything was peak.

Mk3 by comparison falls far short of that but not because of the game itself. Honestly, I find Mk2 to be kind of garbage by comparison. The big stompy robots had non-functional rules and a couple factions got to have all the fun the game had to offer while the rest.... eh? Mk3 to me was a far better game but really seemed to hit at time when people had had enough of Warmachine and were looking for other things.



Indeed, I am usually astounded when I see the common opinion "mk2" was best, as mk3 quite objectively improved so many aspects of the game that mk2 was struggling with (warjacks, morale, abundance of NPEs and oh do many quality of life improvements!).

But I understand now that this opinion is not really about rules quality or even quality of the game in general, but on much more intangible vibes, often local.

For me peak Warmachine was at the end of mk3, with all final patches in place, formats like Brawlmachine..alas, for any publisher a new edition is always better than a good edition :,(]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815168.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815168.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40K: 8th edition
My gaming group still got enough games and mini-tournaments in to still get a hang of some tactics of the game, the rules were straightforward, GW seemed to care about actually improving the game; and the new rules mostly improved on stuff we had disliked about 5th-7th edition. With strats and the rework of CC the downtime was reduced and there was actually something to think about in your opponent's turn.
9th felt utterly unnecessary to us, brought in hardly any relevant changes but tried to force you into new missions and codizes while ramping up the lethality of the game even more - which was already the key problem of 8th. Also releasing it during Covid really alienated us. I think I got a crusade campaign of about 8 games in in 9th, but by the end of the edition we had switched to OPR.

LOTR:
Well, in the Blue Book era I had the most games by far, but everything I read and played about the edition before the current one felt good, so I'd say the game for me peaks right before the current edition. With GW being too lazy to even translate the current edition I never even took a look into it. I'm still annoyed they cancelled cm in favor of inches at some point, so I won't start to learn the game again in another language...

Star Trek Attack Wing:
2014/15, right when we started. I was really hyped about that game, eagerly awaited every new release for my chosen factions and went after every limited OP release. And then they just stopped releasing stuff.
I had a new hype when I did a Solo-Alliance campaign last year. It still is a very strong game, possibly my favourite.

OPR and Star Wars Armada haven't really changed while I played it. OPR has some patches every half year, but they are rather small reshuffling. It's annoying to relearn the names of special rules yet again, but when you get into the details it's clear most stuff stays the same all the time. Maybe playing OPR IS our peak 40K experience
And I started with Armada two years ago, half a year before they cancelled it... So, the game is stable now, it is my most played game currently. It would be more awesome if it was Trek, but you have to take what you have players for. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815175.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815175.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
That said, a few observations about specific games.

-Based on what I'm seeing of the new edition, KoW may have peaked for me in 3rd edition. I could be wrong, but 4th seems already to be the edition for more restricted army lists, higher prices, all in on multibasing, etc. All things that make me less interested as someone who liked the rules and openness of KoW but had little interest in the Mantic ecosystem or factions. I realize some folks feel that 2nd is superior for the same reasons. My feelings may be colored by the fact that I really liked the 3.5 red book and 3rd was the edition I played the most of and had a good campaign in.

-I do think that 90s Necromunda and Mordheim are the peak implementations of the 90s WHFB/40K mechanics. Limited to small Warbands and stripped of unnecessary weight, the mechanics really shine in these games and produce the fast and fun experience that the larger versions struggled to create.

-I'm still digging the current version of OPR. It still covers all my old minis and the ease Army Builder means I'll probably continue to use whatever the current version is. Our group plays allot of OPR.

-It's not necessarily a new edition, but I think that basic "Revised" Song of Blades and Heroes is a better game for me than the Advanced version. Not to say Advanced is bad, but I love the beer and pretzels experience of basic and it has excellent supplements to a degree that Advanced never got.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815188.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815188.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
-I'm still digging the current version of OPR. It still covers all my old minis and the ease Army Builder means I'll probably continue to use whatever the current version is. Our group plays allot of OPR.

There's a nice OPR scene chugging along in the UK too. I came to it as 3.0 launched, as a solution to never finishing a big game of 40k, and really enjoyed it. I agree with some of the above posters that granularity is creeping back in with 3.5 — which is fun, but it's a slippery slope from that to flying in the face of its 'simple wargaming' premise.

40k 3rd edition was my favourite art-wise and army size-wise, I fell out of the game during 4th, and rejoining in 9th as a much older adult I had this massive feeling of 'army bloat'. Reduced points costs to sell more models, with 2k remaining an army size standard and 1k often leading to swingy, unbalanced games. That's how the modern game is, and I get it — it's why I gravitated to OPR. However, I feel like 10th has been the best yet from a miniature sculpts point of view. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815194.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815194.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
And then they have to keep fiddling with it to try and create a systemic approach to preventing this sort of stuff and it gradually makes the game more complicated and annoying to interact with. A lot of games start simple with relatively "do what you want" ethos and then gradually get whined into "tightening up" due to people who can't stop themselves abusing an undercosted option if it exists.

I used to be more sympathetic to the "balance is the job of the games designer" but when you're talking about a free game that is trying to allow for maximum compatibility with 30 years of model collections it's just an unreasonable expectation. It's a bit different if you're charging 50 quid for your rulebook and then 20 quid per army, then I think, yeah, put a bit of work in for me please. But when looking at free games or at least very cheap games I think some of the onus on having a fun game has to be on us as players.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815210.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815210.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? WHFB 6th edition is probably the most complete version of the game ever developed by GW. It had rules for Skirmish, Campaigns everything. Yeah there were a few broken builds but nothing so extreme as later editions, or earlier ones for that matter.

I'll also give an endorsement of Blue Book Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle game. Easily one of the best games GW has ever produced.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815213.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815213.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? WHFB 6e everyone except Chaos Dwarves got an army book too, and that was the last edition that ever happened in.

I can't even recall what was the most over powered stuff in WFB 6e. Second Dwarf army book had some filth in it with boring gunline lists, for sure. But I always preferred the first book because the whole thing is told to you by a grumpy hammerer.

You could do annoying stuff with skirmishers a lot in that edition, lots of march blocking and other shenanigans, but I don't recall it being game breaking.

I don't think the books were that bad in 8e either, but not everyone got one and the core rules were the issue there. I've often thought if you got rid of the Horde rule and Steadfast and just kept step up and maybe put 6e or 7e magic onto 8e you'd have a pretty decent game. I liked Step Up as a mechanic, I think it made sense, but as usual it was coupled with Steadfast and Horde pushing everything too far in one direction.

I know it's petty but my most hated rules for WFB 8th were the terrain rules - just ridiculous from any kind of narrative or immersive perspective unless you're fighting all your battles in the Chaos Wastes.

Edit: Cyel and Lunarsol: Mk3 pretty much killed the game, so I dunno you think it could be the peak experience? The release was rushed, the rules required loads of errata that meant the book was out of date extremely soon after they released it. Some factions like Skorne were treated very poorly by the update. And they moved heavily into theme lists as a model which was just very unpopular with people who liked the older more free style of list building, which was now penalised. It also meant if you hadn't bought stuff in the themes PP came up with, suddenly you didn't have much of an army any more, and might have to buy a bunch more models to actually get one on the table. And that was coupled with really bad supply issues here in Europe, so suddenly you need to buy models but you can't actually find them anywhere. And of course they burned their biggest advocates by closing the Press Gang program, which had been doing a lot of the heavy lifting with events. Around then as well the game started to shift more toward 2D terrain which just looks really ugly and is offputting to new players. And didn't they also delete their forums?

So the core rules could have been great (and they probably were very good) but the entire ecosystem of army building, actually collecting the damn miniatures, community events and online presence was a total mess. And the game at least while I still paid attention to it was not more balanced in Mk3, though I can believe it might have gotten better with patching and so on. But you can hardly be surprised that people didn't wait around for that given the list of errors or anti-consumer moves PP had done in the shift to Mk3? And then they End Timesed the game, like they were speedrunning GW in the Kirby era or something. I still can't believe they did that, I really liked the old setting and had run RPG campaigns and all sorts in it. Now my factions don't even really exist any more. Insert joke about only having two nickels but it being weird that it happened twice here I suppose.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that once patched and once factions like Skorne had been rebalanced, the game was decent. They were always pretty good at making a solid and fun game. But all that other nonsense (and for me, especially the changes to army building which are 100% a part of the rules that just got worse from my POV) really badly damaged the game to the point where every shop in Germany had PP stuff selling for half price by the end. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815216.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815216.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40K 5th edition, I think. When they were not supporting Specialist Games there was a rise in non-GW games.

A lot of folks were doing experimental stuff with the Specialist Games. For former Portent/Warseer users, it was the time of the Firebase E-zine.

My second "Peak" was with the creation of Osprey Games and the Blue Book wargame series. That opened a lot of doors to new games, periods, and styles of games. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815228.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815228.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 Da Boss wrote:

Edit: Cyel and Lunarsol: Mk3 pretty much killed the game, so I dunno you think it could be the peak experience? The release was rushed, the rules required loads of errata that meant the book was out of date extremely soon after they released it. Some factions like Skorne were treated very poorly by the update. And they moved heavily into theme lists as a model which was just very unpopular with people who liked the older more free style of list building, which was now penalised. It also meant if you hadn't bought stuff in the themes PP came up with, suddenly you didn't have much of an army any more, and might have to buy a bunch more models to actually get one on the table. And that was coupled with really bad supply issues here in Europe, so suddenly you need to buy models but you can't actually find them anywhere. And of course they burned their biggest advocates by closing the Press Gang program, which had been doing a lot of the heavy lifting with events. Around then as well the game started to shift more toward 2D terrain which just looks really ugly and is offputting to new players. And didn't they also delete their forums?

So the core rules could have been great (and they probably were very good) but the entire ecosystem of army building, actually collecting the damn miniatures, community events and online presence was a total mess. And the game at least while I still paid attention to it was not more balanced in Mk3, though I can believe it might have gotten better with patching and so on. But you can hardly be surprised that people didn't wait around for that given the list of errors or anti-consumer moves PP had done in the shift to Mk3? And then they End Timesed the game, like they were speedrunning GW in the Kirby era or something. I still can't believe they did that, I really liked the old setting and had run RPG campaigns and all sorts in it. Now my factions don't even really exist any more. Insert joke about only having two nickels but it being weird that it happened twice here I suppose.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that once patched and once factions like Skorne had been rebalanced, the game was decent. They were always pretty good at making a solid and fun game. But all that other nonsense (and for me, especially the changes to army building which are 100% a part of the rules that just got worse from my POV) really badly damaged the game to the point where every shop in Germany had PP stuff selling for half price by the end.


That was ultimately my point, that the experience of Mk2 was far better than Mk3, but Mk3 was a far far better game. Ultimatley nearly every complaint I ever hear about it was very much a problem in Mk2. 2D terrain was all people would play on in Mk2. Skorne was terrible in MK2. Themes were increasingly dominant in Mk2. The main problem just seemed to be that people started taking issue with them in Mk3. Part of that is likely expectations. People had an incredible amount of faith in perfect balance at the time. I think a bigger part of it was an excuse. Mk2 was an exhausting treadmill and an excuse to hop off was enticing. I do think the real answer is just that 8th edition promised to be better and a LOT of Warmachine's audience was spurned 40k players. I'm not sure I've seen a community so eager to find grievances to declare the game dead. It really felt like a lot of people just wanted to play other things, but felt like they couldn't as long as they were trapped in the Warmachine ecosphere.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815253.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815253.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? GW game. Rest is just capitalism doing what it does best, reselling you what you already had, time and time again. Second editions are usually tolerable, at times they even manage to "fix" the worst aspects of 1st edition, but anything beyond 2nd edition is already a different game than the original 1st edition most times, and rarely for the better

Original Space Hulk. 2nd Edition Blood Bowl. 1st and 2nd edition 40k (1st edition for the skirmish RPG, 2nd for wargaming). 1st and second edition of Space Marine. 1st edition of KT21 (Elliott Hamer's baby is already being watered down by committee). etc etc

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815264.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815264.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
The Hobby aspect prevents full agreement.

Yes, capitalism is capitalism and they always want you to buy more. No argument there.

But for a hobby that involves collecting, building and painting models, your collection is going to grow over time. And with it, you’re eventually going to want to be able to play with more of said collection in a single game.

I don’t defend a set three or even four year cycle. But, I will acknowledge that a shake up or refinement, whether main rules or Codex equivalent can also bring a fresh challenge. So it’s not necessarily unwelcome as a thing

Where I think GW needs to do better is to rely less on edition changes, but keep up the Errata and FAQ to keep things tidy.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815273.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815273.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? GW. It's not even just about the books themselves, GW sells a lot more models too each time they release a new edition, and each faction sells a lot more models for a bit when they get a new codex, regardless of anything else.

It's why just polishing HH2.0 was never on the table, for example, even though improving on it was what much of what the community wanted. GW needs the publicity of a full edition table flip to drive the hype.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815274.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815274.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815277.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815277.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? GW will not do it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815281.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815281.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 LunarSol wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:

Edit: Cyel and Lunarsol: Mk3 pretty much killed the game, so I dunno you think it could be the peak experience? The release was rushed, the rules required loads of errata that meant the book was out of date extremely soon after they released it. Some factions like Skorne were treated very poorly by the update. And they moved heavily into theme lists as a model which was just very unpopular with people who liked the older more free style of list building, which was now penalised. It also meant if you hadn't bought stuff in the themes PP came up with, suddenly you didn't have much of an army any more, and might have to buy a bunch more models to actually get one on the table. And that was coupled with really bad supply issues here in Europe, so suddenly you need to buy models but you can't actually find them anywhere. And of course they burned their biggest advocates by closing the Press Gang program, which had been doing a lot of the heavy lifting with events. Around then as well the game started to shift more toward 2D terrain which just looks really ugly and is offputting to new players. And didn't they also delete their forums?

So the core rules could have been great (and they probably were very good) but the entire ecosystem of army building, actually collecting the damn miniatures, community events and online presence was a total mess. And the game at least while I still paid attention to it was not more balanced in Mk3, though I can believe it might have gotten better with patching and so on. But you can hardly be surprised that people didn't wait around for that given the list of errors or anti-consumer moves PP had done in the shift to Mk3? And then they End Timesed the game, like they were speedrunning GW in the Kirby era or something. I still can't believe they did that, I really liked the old setting and had run RPG campaigns and all sorts in it. Now my factions don't even really exist any more. Insert joke about only having two nickels but it being weird that it happened twice here I suppose.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that once patched and once factions like Skorne had been rebalanced, the game was decent. They were always pretty good at making a solid and fun game. But all that other nonsense (and for me, especially the changes to army building which are 100% a part of the rules that just got worse from my POV) really badly damaged the game to the point where every shop in Germany had PP stuff selling for half price by the end.


That was ultimately my point, that the experience of Mk2 was far better than Mk3, but Mk3 was a far far better game. Ultimatley nearly every complaint I ever hear about it was very much a problem in Mk2. 2D terrain was all people would play on in Mk2. Skorne was terrible in MK2. Themes were increasingly dominant in Mk2. The main problem just seemed to be that people started taking issue with them in Mk3. Part of that is likely expectations. People had an incredible amount of faith in perfect balance at the time. I think a bigger part of it was an excuse. Mk2 was an exhausting treadmill and an excuse to hop off was enticing. I do think the real answer is just that 8th edition promised to be better and a LOT of Warmachine's audience was spurned 40k players. I'm not sure I've seen a community so eager to find grievances to declare the game dead. It really felt like a lot of people just wanted to play other things, but felt like they couldn't as long as they were trapped in the Warmachine ecosphere.


For me, it was waiting to see if they changed direction on the bad decisions I saw them making toward the end of 2e, or if they doubled down. And in my view, they doubled down. I also think army building is such a huge part of a game that when you make it crap (with theme lists/formations/whatever) then you really badly impact the game. I don't think a game with that style of list building is good, full stop.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815282.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815282.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 Da Boss wrote:
As time goes on, games like OPR get too many people crying "If I spam this one undercosted unit 16 times in my list the game is UNBALANCED?!! This is a failure of the game and not me as a human being at all! If presented with a more efficient option I have to take it because I am well rounded and healthy!"

.


OPR does have some simple rules for army composition that greatly limit spamming.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815301.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815301.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you? RPG's.

Another peak started 10 years ago (: when I retired and had time to paint mini's! Solo miniature games, like "Five Leagues from the Borderlands".
(If you're new to 5L and are new to miniatures, start with their "Deep Below" ruleset. Review here: https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=116288.90 )

ObPic:
Spoiler:
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815330.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815330.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 Da Boss wrote:


For me, it was waiting to see if they changed direction on the bad decisions I saw them making toward the end of 2e, or if they doubled down. And in my view, they doubled down. I also think army building is such a huge part of a game that when you make it crap (with theme lists/formations/whatever) then you really badly impact the game. I don't think a game with that style of list building is good, full stop.


My comment is from my point of view and this point of view judges the game purely on the quality of its rules. I don't really care about community dramas, business decisions, background noise etc, I usually don't even know about these, I want to play the game not listen to rumours. I only care if the game is good and mk3 is objectively better than mk2, fixing many of its problems without adding new, worse ones.

I wish other players also judged the game by its rules, as we could still be happily playing it with the models everybody already owned instead of getting miffed at the company and using it as a reason not to play.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815359.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815359.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
WHFB 6th edition is probably the most complete version of the game ever developed by GW. It had rules for Skirmish, Campaigns everything. Yeah there were a few broken builds but nothing so extreme as later editions, or earlier ones for that matter.


It also had a 150 page community FAQ and different comp rules in every town, making it utterly impenetrable for new players wanting to come in in the second half of the edition. It's interesting that most folks' favourite editions of both 40k and WHFB existed in the time when GW's policy was to just not touch the rules after publication, at all, until the next edition. And now we can't survive a month with an undercosted unit in the meta.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815366.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815366.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
Cyel wrote:
 Da Boss wrote:


For me, it was waiting to see if they changed direction on the bad decisions I saw them making toward the end of 2e, or if they doubled down. And in my view, they doubled down. I also think army building is such a huge part of a game that when you make it crap (with theme lists/formations/whatever) then you really badly impact the game. I don't think a game with that style of list building is good, full stop.


My comment is from my point of view and this point of view judges the game purely on the quality of its rules. I don't really care about community dramas, business decisions, background noise etc, I usually don't even know about these, I want to play the game not listen to rumours. I only care if the game is good and mk3 is objectively better than mk2, fixing many of its problems without adding new, worse ones.

I wish other players also judged the game by its rules, as we could still be happily playing it with the models everybody already owned instead of getting miffed at the company and using it as a reason not to play.


My point of view means subjective, you do know that right? Both of us are discussing our subjective POV on the game, you can't say it's "objectively better". Theme lists becoming the standard instead of going away is part of the game rules, and a terrible one for a lot of players. Do you understand that people were put off from playing by themes, and it was a rules choice, not some background noise?

And poor balance at the start of the edition for entire factions is also a problem with the rules of the game, not with the community or background noise. You're expecting them to fix the problems that exist in Mk2 but they don't and some get worse, I dunno I just don't share your opinion at all.

I wish PP had made better decisions and not torpedoed their game, because it was a great game and I have a lot of fond memories of the setting and the time I spent with it. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815392.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815392.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
If they introduced a change that would make, say, an entire category of models totally unplayable it would be pretty objectively bad design. Not really a subjective opinion "I like my cavalry playable, but my friends actually prefer them to have rules that don't make sense and that make playing with cavalry a pain".

And yeah of course that we may argue that tastes vary and somebody likes apples while another being kicked in the balls, but all in all the superiority of apples over being kicked in the balls is not something that you generally discuss along the lines of "well it depends and is a subjective matter of taste".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815401.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815401.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
And you're just ignoring the points I'm making about rules I thought were bad as well.

Your analogy at the end also shows that you think people who disagree with you are stupid, which is just unpleasant.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815404.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815404.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 lord_blackfang wrote:

It also had a 150 page community FAQ and different comp rules in every town, making it utterly impenetrable for new players wanting to come in in the second half of the edition. It's interesting that most folks' favourite editions of both 40k and WHFB existed in the time when GW's policy was to just not touch the rules after publication, at all, until the next edition. And now we can't survive a month with an undercosted unit in the meta.


There's a bit of survivorship bias at play in this kind of nostalgia. You'll often find that when people insist a specific edition was the best you can make a pretty clean guess what they were playing. At the time, you'll find a lot of the forums or what have you full of people complaining about the undercosted units of the day.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815754.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815754.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 LunarSol wrote:
 lord_blackfang wrote:

It also had a 150 page community FAQ and different comp rules in every town, making it utterly impenetrable for new players wanting to come in in the second half of the edition. It's interesting that most folks' favourite editions of both 40k and WHFB existed in the time when GW's policy was to just not touch the rules after publication, at all, until the next edition. And now we can't survive a month with an undercosted unit in the meta.


There's a bit of survivorship bias at play in this kind of nostalgia. You'll often find that when people insist a specific edition was the best you can make a pretty clean guess what they were playing.


Really? Give it a shot. Pretend I'm claiming each of these editions was the best. Personally I really like 9e/10e.
What was I playing (the most of) in:
RT: I only had 1 army at that time
2e:
3e:
4e:
5e:
6e:
7e: I'll give you this one as I only accidently played 1 game & it was with Khorne demons. I didn't even realize I was playing a different edition!
8e: My return to 40k after being away since mid 6e - mid 8e, not counting that one 7e game - I only played 1 army (the rest were in deep storage).
9e:
10:
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815762.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815762.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40k or really any GW games. They're stuff I play as a tertiary thing at best with 10th being the first time I've liked it enough to bump it up to a secondary game.

The point though is this idea that complaining about the state of the meta and demanding change isn't a modern thing. People have been complaining about OP stuff for as long as games exist. That's a huge part of why the industry has shifted to tools that can better manage updates.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815763.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11815763.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
40K-

i call it the golden age-3rd-5th edition, 3rd was a bit clunky but you could see the general improvement over those 3 editions. while i feel 5th generally had the best rule set modifications the slide away from lore based rules found heavily in 3rd/4th ed codexes was a negative even though there were a few really good 5th edition exceptions.

Warmachine-

core rules wise it is MK III, although i know most players liked MK II the best.

Infinity-

N2 was the best, the tables were big (6X4) the game was long enough to work out grand plans (6 turns) and the level of crunch was fantastic. N3 added a few good things like terrain stats but really screwed up hacking devices by making them way over complex even for infinity.

warhammer fantasy-

Easily 6th ed. although the more i play of old world it is growing on me.

DUST-

easily when Andy Chambers made the 3d terrain rules which was DUST battlefield "tactics" although that carried stright over to 1947 so it basically is the same thing.

BFG-

when they released the final update in 2010 that added even more thematic ways to play your fleets

CLASSIC BATTLE TECH-

Well this is hard to quantify because battle tech has really never had an official "edition" it was more along the lines of what optional official rules your group chooses to play with.

I think the best overall era is probably civil war early jihad before the tech base gets silly. so 2002-2005. since the core rules have basically been the same for 40 years with the exception of catalysts "new editon rules changes disaster" that is trying to turn classic into "alpha strike light".

Most of the other games i play never had an edition churn to worry about or i have not played them long enough for it to matter.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816003.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816003.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 tauist wrote:
Unpopular opinion - The first editions were peak, regardless of GW game. Rest is just capitalism doing what it does best, reselling you what you already had, time and time again. Second editions are usually tolerable, at times they even manage to "fix" the worst aspects of 1st edition, but anything beyond 2nd edition is already a different game than the original 1st edition most times, and rarely for the better

Original Space Hulk. 2nd Edition Blood Bowl. 1st and 2nd edition 40k (1st edition for the skirmish RPG, 2nd for wargaming). 1st and second edition of Space Marine. 1st edition of KT21 (Elliott Hamer's baby is already being watered down by committee). etc etc



I think in terms of freshness of ideas, yes, certainly. But later editions often improve on things. I think the temptation is to change radically. Its interesting you have Space Marine in your example, as the rules for that are completely different with each edition, 1st through 4th.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816173.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816173.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 lord_blackfang wrote:
 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
WHFB 6th edition is probably the most complete version of the game ever developed by GW. It had rules for Skirmish, Campaigns everything. Yeah there were a few broken builds but nothing so extreme as later editions, or earlier ones for that matter.


It also had a 150 page community FAQ and different comp rules in every town, making it utterly impenetrable for new players wanting to come in in the second half of the edition. It's interesting that most folks' favourite editions of both 40k and WHFB existed in the time when GW's policy was to just not touch the rules after publication, at all, until the next edition. And now we can't survive a month with an undercosted unit in the meta.


150 page community FAQ that was, frankly, not really needed. Rules comp in every town was a creation of the internet and no, it really didn't make it impenetrable to new players. I know, I was a new player at the time.

Frankly GW not touching the rules is ultimately a good thing. The constant patching is what makes modern GW games harder to get into. Why even buy a book when it gets patched and FAQed day 1.

The videogameification of miniature games has been significantly more negative than positive.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816178.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816178.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you?
But I sit back and wonder how truthful is that? Or is it because I entered the game all starry eyed and blown away by the cool interesting newness of it. And then as I played it more and more/more and more editions those positives just became "normal" and those little niggles dragged?

I think the only exception to this is Horus Heresy, which I think has just gotten stronger with each new edition.

I'd say 5th edition was the best 40k has ever been, even when I think back today I do genuinely believe the trend since than has been downwards. Although I've not actually played 5th since I was but a starry eyed tween and definitely don't remember it 100%.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816181.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816181.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
I think the only exception to this is Horus Heresy, which I think has just gotten stronger with each new edition.


I feel the complete opposite. it's 1.0 or nothing in my book. Alan Bligh did it the best.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816224.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816224.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
Now it has like... disappeared ...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816361.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816361.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 aphyon wrote:
I think the only exception to this is Horus Heresy, which I think has just gotten stronger with each new edition.


I feel the complete opposite. it's 1.0 or nothing in my book. Alan Bligh did it the best.

You say that right up until you meet a Solar Aux or Iron Warriors list and your entire army vapourises on turn 1 to all the cheap Strength 10 AP2 Large Blasts they're throwing out

2.0 redressed the imbalances of 1.0, and changed some mechanics (then completely failed to address the imbalances those mechanical changes created). But as strong as Contemptors and Lascannons were they were still no 1.0 Medusa!
3.0 has redressed *those* imbalances and generally improved the mechanics. There's not really anything that 3.0 has done where I think "the game would be better if they hadn't". Although there's still a few refinements.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SU-152 wrote:
Flames of War reached its peak during v2 and v3, so long ago....

Now it has like... disappeared ...

The main complaint I heard about V4 was that it only launched with [iirc] midwar and basically invalidated huge swathes of content they had built up over years of V3? And now they've rereleased all those eras and stuff I hear V4 is good again?

I'm saying this as someone who bought a second hand force a couple years ago intending to get to it, and it's just sat in the to-do pile since. In my defence it has recently migrated from the "unbuilt" pile to the "built" pile, so it's getting there!
And I hear my city has a decent scene, but generally more meeting amongst themselves rather than any organised club(s).
So I'm genuinely curious about the state of the game. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816366.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816366.page GMT When was the "peak" of different games for you? 40k in 3rd edition and I liked 3rd to 5th edition the best. The differences between 3, 4 and 5 are just details, compared to challenges, flyers, super heavies, formations and stratagems of later editions.

Codex wise mid 3rd to end of 4th was the best, when GW was still releasing rules in WD that you were supposed to kitbash at home.

It felt like GW genuinely cared about making a good game and cool fluff for you to explore, instead of pushing out things because "everybody needs a subfaction and every subfaction needs x items and y stratagems and z ..." ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816387.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816387.page GMT Re:When was the "peak" of different games for you?
 kirotheavenger wrote:
here's not really anything that 3.0 has done where I think "the game would be better if they hadn't". Although there's still a few refinements.


I absolutely can think of things. They nerfed chainswords and the units using them (which were units that were already weak, generally), with Assault Squads in particular being an off-meta fluff choice that was absolutely obliterated by 3.0 (lost charge attack, lost wound rerolls, lost line in exchange for vanguard that they will never score, removed sweeps which means they will be stuck in chaff all game).

They also deleted a huge chunk of stuff. I am not a Sisters of Silence player, but those who committed to their incredible 2.0 list were brutally rug pulled by 3.0, and I am furious on their behalf. In general, 3.0 deleted everything that never had a dedicated model (even from Legacies), and started the awful process of gradually boxlocking the game with the Marine Consuls (a scourge that does not belong in 30k).

Deep strike was also beyond crushed. I get that mass deep strike in 2.0 was seen as polarising, but Blood Angels drop lists and the like didn't deserve to have their source code deleted from existence like this.

3.0 challenges are a cute idea that is monstrously blown out of proportion and is a vampire on the rest of the game. So many unique character traits are just gambits now.

Actually, characters are a criticism to itself. They are so dulled down. Compare the shenanigans Alpharius could get up to in 1.0 and 2.0. 3.0 Alpharius is a husk of his former self. The flavour loss is felt across the game.

Faction special rules have also been dulled down. Compare the subfaction rules for 1.0 and 2.0 Dark Angels to their 3.0 version. Big meh.

The rules writing is a mess. It tries to be extremely clear and straightforward to the point of satire (why does everything have to be capitalised? Is there really any argument about what a Model and a Unit is?) and yet it's rushed in many places, as if bogged down by its own complexity, resulting in rules questions that to this day remain unclarified. What happens if you shoot a S10 weapon into an AV10 vehicle and a roll a 1 on your Armour Penetration Test? A 1 always fails in a Test and no exemption is granted here, so what happens? If a character joins a unit with the Endless Horde rule, the unit dies but the character remains, does the rule trigger? In fact characters are super unclear in general, how do characters interact with things like Blackshield Oaths? Can a character join two units at once? How does the Magos rule that gives FNP during challenges work, since the step where FNP rules take effect never happens in challenges to begin with?

(Sure, previous editions also had their rules mishaps, but 3.0 is certainly not better).
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816411.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/818705/11816411.page GMT