Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Future Wars => Topic started by: Lawful Evil on January 17, 2014, 01:35:23 PM
-
I know, I know, a controversial topic with nearly as many opinions as there are editions, but I was given the Dark Vengeance box set as a birthday present (thanks Bruz) and I'd like to play some 40k.
The problem is the game gets more and more complex as it ages, and the current rulebook is insanely weighty (and expensive) and not a lot of fun to read.
I'd like to use an older edition of 40k, one that is easy to learn (I know the basics of GW games, who doesn't?) and allows for variety of troops and different armies to feel unique and balanced (as balanced as possible) so that my victory doesn't hinge on the newest super massive deluxe creature.
Which edition is considered the most fun? I grew up on Necromunda, which I heard is based on 2nd edition rules. Is that right?
Any opinions or insights would be appreciated.
-
Easiest version that I ever played was 2nd...and it has just enough silliness in it to be considered fun.
;)
Oh, and it is retro so must be cool, right...?
8)
Still not sure if I will use RT or 2nd myself, at a later date, of course.....
-
I thoroughly enjoyed 2nd Ed, and the rules had a lot of detail as well as a good sense of humor. You're right that Necromunda was basically just 2nd Ed, with all tthe tweaking occuring in terms of the campaign system as opposed to rules mechanics. It was great, as it meant your favourite characters from each could swop with ease. I do recall it wasn't the easiest system to pick up though...
On the other hand 3rd edition was the start of the new 'streamlined' serious setting, but I found a lot easier to pick up and gave quicker more flowing games.
Both came with armylists included, although the respective codexes did add to these it gave you a good start...
If I was ever to go back, it'd be to one of the two - possibly depending on how silly (fun?) I wanted things to be...
-
I'd agree with the dragon above :)
3rd is probably a bit easier to learn, but 2nd is my favourite. Possibly because that's where I started and I have fond memories of it.
It had lots of great daft bits (Ork Madboys! Individual damage tables for all vehicles depending on the location hit! Individual troopers in a squad able to throw grenades which can scatter individually, so if a squad of 10 throws grenades it's a miracle if none of them detonate in the throwing squad!) but I would say it was more complex, being a bit like an RPG scaled up into a wargame.
-
I played the sysyems frm RT up to 5th edition and have book nr 6 but got seriously burned out on 40K before I could play it. Remarkably fast, after almost 15 years, right? :D
Of all the systems, RT is the loosest and silliest. 2nd edition is still fun but revolves a lot around über powerful characters. But the obvious links with Necromunda are a plus imho.
3rd ed was a radical change, but a good one, as far as gameplay was concerned. But 4th takes the cake for me, as it combined all the errata grown out of the growing game and its ranges into one ruleset and this is therefore the edition of choice for myself and my friends.
5th, which I have only played a handful of times, makes vehicles a lot more powerful, but unless you're a serious trackhead, why bother?
6th? Your guess is as good as mine, but imho, frm 5th onwards, the edition changes seem more profit driven than system driven... ::)
-
2nd Edition is probably the best as long as you don't mind the special grenade rules or tweak them. Some of the grenades can really slow the rules down substantially. It has the best blend of rules though and plays pretty well. 3rd is boring and 4th through to the current version are really just a mess.
I have a complete set of 2nd edition books and templates as we were playing it locally for a while. Also plays with a smaller number of troops than any other version.
-
For me it was the simplicity of 3rd edition. I loved it.
After that it only got more complex and not in a good way...
So 3rd, 2nd and nothing else.
-
I enjoyed Rogue Trader right up to the release of the vehicle rules with the targeting grid. o_o
I had a lot of fun games playing 2nd Ed, even in tournaments. I really enjoyed designing scenarios and spin-offs.
I had a lot of fun playing 3rd edition as well. However, that's when the 40K meta-game started to get sick, and started to ruin the game IMO. Players seemed more interested in winning a game than playing and having fun. Really haven't played since 4th, although I'm still acquiring figures??? Why ???
-
Really haven't played since 4th, although I'm still acquiring figures??? Why ???
Same for me, but I play my Marines with my Future Combat rules now, great fun (at least for me).
-
2nd, but getting hold of the stuff is a bit of a faff.
-
Play tested wh40k, sold first ever copy at Games day '87
Still prefer laserburn 8)
-
For me it was the simplicity of 3rd edition. I loved it.
This.
In its early stages 3rd ed was the closest that the game got to being streamlined and playable with reasonably large forces while still feeling a fair bit like the background. It wasnt perfect, but it was the closest that the franchise got.
Min/max type list building cocked up every version, but for games with friends I had the most fun with 3rd ed for sure.
2nd ed didnt work as a battle game at all. Its a skirmish rule set really.
-
Play tested wh40k, sold first ever copy at Games day '87
Still prefer laserburn 8)
Ah, well... In keeping with the topic though, I would say I enjoy playing 2nd edition the most.
It depends on how you do it though. We generally play concerted games where details in scenario are specific to one side/army, conditions are unequal, balance is a town in the former Soviet Republic and beer is used to settle rules disputes. lol
If you fancy balance, thought provoking meta play and intricate game play mechanisms this is not for you.
-
2nd edition, mind you only played RT and that so not really much of an endorsement ;D
-
2nd edition and I still have the lot in the loft :)
-
I'd actually say that the current edition is the best. I think it's a logical and tweaked version of the system that was introduced in 3rd edition. It plays a bit quicker than the previous edition and makes a bit more sense in certain areas. That said, I still think that 40k in general is not a great ruleset, but I find the current to be the best of the batch.
I know alot of folks will say 2nd edition. Like many, it was my first version of 40k I went back to it a year ago to play it again and see what I had missed. I found a reasonably good small skirmish engine that was being used to run battles over the platoon level. It was slow, clunky and far too detailed for anything bigger than a couple of squads per-side. Rolling scatter for every single jumping marine, sustained fire dice, insane wargear, a magic system that was essentially it's own game, etc, etc, need I go on?
On the other hand, I think the mechanics found their ideal match in Necromunda, a game whose scope matches the complexity of 2nd edition perfectly.
-
I started with 4th, but played more 5th. I bought the latest box set for the models, and a year and a half later I've still not played it. It might be good, but none of my friends play it, and I'm not interested in making new friends. :P
-
I learn English with rogue trader.
I have played all 40k editions and a lot of side GW game.
First RT was the only one available so it was the best. But It became heavy and unbalanced.
The second edition was very fun and in french so we enjoyed it a lot.
The system is a bit old and too many sub systems slow the game.
Third was fast to play, but too many thing was missing, especially overwatch and random (yes I play chaos). I only play it because it was the only one played.
Fourth was better, an beta version IMHO
I do not play five a lot.
Six is IMHO the more effective and balanced (the rules not the codex).
It's certainly a very good game, perhaps too many little rules to retain.
But all of this is bullshit ;)
Good rules do not make good edition. It's the codex.
This point is very important, for this reason I prefer second edition.
Second edition is not perfect, you can abuse the army lists.
But since third edition, everything goes bigger and bigger.
Keeping the spirit of an army is the best way to loose and I don't like it.
My two cents.
-
The answer is clearly and completely 3rd edition. All other opinions are wrong, misguided or outright lies ;)
Joking aside, the most fun I ever had was late 3rd/early 4th. My area was fairly competative with lots of official tournaments and very active open game nights. Wednesdays and saturdays you could show up at any point in the day and were garaunteed to find a game of warhammer IF you could snag an open table (sometimes a big IF). My local FLGS consistently ran 20+ person RTTs and people regularly came in from as far as Las Vegas (about 230 miles/370km from here) to participate. Most people knew the codexes (ALL the codexes) and rules inside & out and were current on latest errata. GW was still officially and completely supported both for independent RTTs as well as GW ran Grand Tournaments (yes, GW themselves actually ran tourneys back then!). GW produced most of the figures you needed but there was still ample room for conversions and customs (and GW still actually had Bitz and Mail Order Trollz you could chat up about conversions!). The rules weren't any more balanced than they are now, but they were balanced enough and games were just simply fun and well suited to randomly walking up to strangers and asking them to play. Army Composition points helped keep down the cheese a bit (a bit), the Dreaded Pub Quiz was always a hit, and you got to meet and play people you'd never otherwise say hello to.
I didn't like every opponent, I didn't like every army, I didn't like every game I played, but I'd trade everything I have and more to go back to that time. GW's official stance may be "dice off for it", and that level of play may not appeal to all, but trust me when I say there is nothing so fun as a game where both players are completely on the same page, completely involved in the outcome (because money and tourney points and pride are riding on every die roll) and completely understanding of the rules without having to look them up or argue about who's rule supercedes what and can just play. Everybody had fully painted armies (often beautifully painted) because that's simply how things were to play. 5th was absolutely horrid both from rules and devolvement of the community. 6th makes me want to stab puppies and kick kittens in front of freight trains, there's so many holes and more importanlty there's so much more emphasis on these supermonsters and supercharacters and supertanks that just annihilate whatever they attack with seemingly nothing to encourage fluffy armies or good modeleling. Most tournaments don't even require the 3 color minimum anymore. There's so much less tactical play now, it's all done in picking your army.
Other games have gotten so much better, other figures are now just as good, other settings are just as robust and yet Warhammer just keeps deliberatly changing further and further and further from what I loved about it. I just wish I could convince others to go back to old editions too, but everyone just wants to do 6th because they're garaunteed games at the local FLGS or they play other games entirely and have completely abandoned GW. Maybe it was just that perfect storm of community+rules+that time of my life, but warhammer just doesn't hold the magic now that it did from 2000-2004ish.
-
3rd edition was the perfect combination of price and miniature supply. Lots of figs. None too expensive and manageable armies.
-
Did the OP say there would be a lot of different opinions? lol
2nd for games of 50-80 models and 6th for anything bigger.
Hated 3rd and 4th so much I stopped playing and sold everything.Then had to rebuy/build for 5th and 6th.
2nd was a blast but all the modifiers,different dice for armor pen/wounds,datasheets for vehicles etc make it a slow game for large armiesAnd HtH takes forever..So its harder to learn IMO.Plus it was written back in the day and there are some big ???? in the rules with little or no errata.But if you know Necromunda you have a headstart.
6th is faster to play with bigger armies. The big thing that slows down the learning curve are the special rules.Special rules for troops, weapons, vehicles,armies,flyers,missions, EVERYTHING.
we just play and if we forget a special rule...oh well ..we will remember it next time,maybe.
Our group is pretty laid back non comp players in 40k.We consider it a beer and pretzels game and laugh at all the teethgnashing the comp guys type on the interwebs.Now fantasy battle is another matter.The guys are all tourney junkies and used to(until 8th ed) travel a good bit for tourneys.
-
I started with third edition, and it is still my favorite. :-* I can't stand the whole "if you get out of a vehicle that moved you can't assault." After twenty years in the military, all I can say to that is "Really?!?" :o
-
I started in second edition and it was a blast... for Necromunda. It was too fiddly for big armies. Third was a great balance and had tons of errata, introduced kill teams, the vehicle creator, the creature creator, cityfight, feral orks, ect. I wasnt a big fan of fourth and only read fifth, but I liked how the vehicle rules read. Which begs the question: why not use what you like the best from all editions? I know you orignally stated you wanted to use one, but they all seem to be out and available on the intrawebs in one form or another. Try them and see what YOU like, and customize as needed. Thats the best part about using older rules editions, you are not trying to keep up with the latest meta army or tournement play rules and can make it your game.
-
Second edition. Pure fun, zero competitiveness.
I had an Ork and an Eldar army. My Orks were zany; the Shokk Attack Gun was played in every single game, and never - not once - hurt the enemy. Only missed or hit my own guys. Still... took it every single game!
Even my Eldar had an element of simplicity and fun.
I will fully confess to missing those days as they were my favourite of gaming - of all time!
-
Also: why wasn't this done as a poll? ;)
-
Second Edition.
Simple enough to still play in a few hours but flexible enough to take house rules and not break the basic mechanics.
Currently trying to convert some of the newer models and armies to work with that edition and, when the stars are right (or when I finally get a few evenings to myself) I may turn my notes into useable Great Crusade/Horus Heresy lists!
-
There's a place that deals with earlier versions. The eastern fringe forum. ;)
-
Something is very wrong if you think 6th is complicated, it's made for players with the mental capacity of a Budgerigar.
2nd was easily the best, I know allot of people moan it wasn't balanced, but it was a ruleset for playing with toys, did you really expect it to be?
But 3rd is my favourite, because that was when I had the most fun, that was when as a kid everything was innocent, that was my love of 40k, the rest are bad memories.
-
The latest edition is the best for what I want, ie large, Great Crusade-era games. Although I think the previous D weapon rules were better for this period. Killing Primarchs so easily is a little dull.
I'm looking forward to playing 2nd Edition again some time as well :)
-
I'm afraid I cannnot tell much more. 2nd ed is, as it has been told, not balanced at all, but the mindset required for this game is 'who cares, I'm here to have some fun' with no further ambitions. If you come from the Necromunda settings, you might feel comfortable with that then. It can become quite a messy game if you begin to add special characters, gear cards, psychic powers, strategy cards and that stuff, but the core game itself is quite reasonable for depicting this kind of skirmishes, you will get the dynamics pretty soon; there is always time to get it difficult. You will have characterful armies with different options and strong settings with narrative component. 2nd ed is what I am currently playing and it keeps te spirits for me.
-
2nd edition and I still have the lot in the loft :)
Agree :) wont touch other editions ( rogue trader is a different story)
-
Seems like the winners are 2nd and 3rd ed. 3rd being a little harder for me to track down at the moment.
...why not use what you like the best from all editions? Try them and see what YOU like, and customize as needed. Thats the best part about using older rules editions, you are not trying to keep up with the latest meta army or tournement play rules and can make it your game.
I think that's the direction I'll be going, or at least tweaking the edition I settle on. I guess I was just hoping for an easy fix, a working game that I could play with minimal changes.
I really wanted to play a game where marines performed like marines, eldar and orks like eldar and orks and Tau are unheard of... lol
The reason I didn't just use one of the many great generic sci fi rule sets that exist these days is I wanted to play some 40k, not sci fi battles with marine troop stand ins. I grew up with 40k all around but never got to play it.
Thanks for the replies, gents. I read and considered them all. Food for thought.
-
If you can get 3rd edition it has the army lists in the main rule book (though they later released codexes for all armies, and there were many "Chapter Approved" extras along the way) so you sould get started fairly quickly.
3rd edition was fun and streamlined for large battles though I recall gunline armies shooting each other up were the order of the day with not a lot of manoeuvre going on - though that may have just been my group.
2nd was my favourite - crazy and unbalanced (though not so much if you use the codex lists that came in the boxed games rather than the later released codexes) but fun. I always felt that 4 turns was not enough time to fit in all you wanted to do to win; but any more would have taken far too long to play, I suppose!
I have no desire to play the current editions. I lost interest around v5. The huge walkers and all the flyers just don't fit in 28mm - they belong in Epic (yes, I am old school!). I am now rebuilding my 2nd edition armies and hopefully can convince my brother or someone else to join in for some old school games, as seems to be the fashion of late.
Also, I must admit the current aesthetic does not work for me. I am unashamedly a fan of "The Red Era" and I like the bright green bases and bright saturated colours (though even I don't paint bolters red!). The current look of the universe just doesn't excite me and never has sadly.
-
Only played 2nd through...maybe 4th?
2nd hands down. However, a number of caveats.
-More complex rules.
-Lengthy games.
-Powerful characters.
-Horrible if you want to play tournaments, as cheesing out a force was super-simple.
However, add a few simple restrictions (point values on characters etc.), and if you're gaming with buddies for fun, it can't be beat. Extremely full of character, and every army felt 10x more unique than today where a troop selection feels like any other. Surely you can find/download wargear cards in PDF (probably fan-made ones too). Necromunda was pretty good, and if you're into that - definitely consider 2nd.
Not to mention a bunch of 2nd edition codexes had lists which included a lot of vehicles/figures which were not available back then, but are today (Wave Serpents etc. which were only available from Armor Cast etc.). So you can probably flesh out a bunch of stuff.
With some fudging of the army lists you could also easily play a "true" squad of Space Marines. Make each marine the equivalent to a Chapter Master or something and you could field a squad of ten marines against a huge wave of baddies. When removed from a tournament genre, I think 2nd allows for the most flexibility, fun, and goofiness. It has a particular charm. I still have a brand new condition Eldar codex complete with vehicle and wargear cards...and I hesitate to let it go even though I no longer game anything GW related.
-
3rd edition for me, as with many others on here because I had the most fun playing it. It was streamlined enough to play battles where 2nd was a skirmish.
I played hundreds of games of 3rd but only 2 of 4th, that was the edition which burned me out
-
I think I got burned out half way through 4th, I always noticed in 3rd as well you had a larger selection of armies to fight, I fought against everything equally, but once 4th hit it was all mech marines (who were stupidly easy to beat yet everyone did them), 5th I played twice and it was rubbish, 6th is a joke.
-
Going on a slight tangent: I stumbled across an article about Kroot (I still like Kroot) and found out that 6th ed has overwatch, going to ground (I think), and supporting fire. Decent tactical stuff, I think. Does this improve 6th ed 40K, or is it spitting into the wind?
-
Going on a slight tangent: I stumbled across an article about Kroot (I still like Kroot) and found out that 6th ed has overwatch, going to ground (I think), and supporting fire. Decent tactical stuff, I think. Does this improve 6th ed 40K, or is it spitting into the wind?
We've played a couple of 6th ed 40k after it was released, and considered it quite an improvement while not affecting game balance too much - the overwatch variant in particular is reasonable enough and not too much of a killer, but I had great fun shooting up chargers with some ridiculously six-heavy dice rolling.
Personally, I still think 2ed played at point sizes between 1000 and 2000 points was the best game, especially if you put some limits on the game-breaky stuff like the more exotic wargear and psychic users. Still trying to get my local group interested in giving it a try once more. But 6th edition, apart from the horrendous number of special rules and their interaction, is as good as the 3ed core rule concept is going to get, IMHO, and can provide for a fun and fast game.
-
....apart from the horrendous number of special rules and their interaction...
Thats the deal breaker for me. My days of keeping track of things like that just so that I can play a "proper" game are long over, even though there is a weird sort of appeal in playing a tournament game with someone when you both know those interactions inside out. But its not the sort of kick that I want to get from a tabletop wargame with tape measures and lovingly painted miniatures that take months to complete. A CCG maybe, but not my hand painted toy soldiers.
After more or less totally skipping 4th and 5th ed I tried to play 6th ed when it came out. My opponent was an old gaming buddy just as familiar with the rules of the prior versions as I am. We got as far as the special rules and decided to play something else instead
:(
-
I've played every edition, I have to say 2nd is my favourite and is fairly balanced (Except Psykers). RT for me gets a firm 2nd placeif you don't fancy 2nd Ed but it's alot more complex.
-
I never played GW games except Necromunda ( :-*) but all this topic would make me searching for a 2nd ed too lol
-
I've played every edition, I have to say 2nd is my favourite and is fairly balanced (Except Psykers). RT for me gets a firm 2nd placeif you don't fancy 2nd Ed but it's alot more complex.
and you can use that Genestealer cult army of yours in the older editions ;)
-
2nd Ed (assuming thats the one that came after RT and had the Blood Angel with Power fist on the box cover).
Fantastic fluff, stupid green bases for everything, Psyker cards, Objective cards, no stupid core / heavy / assault army list restrictions, lots of fun, silly orks, too many card weapon templates, buckets of dice and individual hand to hand combat.
Hours and hours of fun. :-*
-
Going on a slight tangent: I stumbled across an article about Kroot (I still like Kroot) and found out that 6th ed has overwatch, going to ground (I think), and supporting fire. Decent tactical stuff, I think. Does this improve 6th ed 40K, or is it spitting into the wind?
Overwatch is a different rule given the same name.
6th ed was alright at first, but its far too bloated and overcomplicated now.
-
If I had to be pushed, it would be 2nd. Smaller armies than the later editions, loads of great background, brilliant all round.
Love rogue trader too, but objectively 2nd is 'better'. :D
-
All I need would be datafaxes for the later vehicles that were released. Anyone knowing a good source?
Everything else is stored in the basement. The mates and myself have been thinking about a 2nd edition revival weekend. :D
-
All I need would be datafaxes for the later vehicles that were released. Anyone knowing a good source?
Everything else is stored in the basement. The mates and myself have been thinking about a 2nd edition revival weekend. :D
Search for The Battle Bible
-
No, I meant datafaxes for vehicles like the Land Raider Redeemer for example. Vehicles that didn't exist during 2nd edition. The Battle Bible isn't bad but what's in there I had already in store. ;)
-
Rogue Trader and 2nd edition for me. Rogue Trader has that DIY element that I so enjoy... feel free to mess about with the rules and make up new stuff.
I like the smaller story-based games and the feel of the setting from that era... much less full of itself.
If I want a BIG game with lots of troops and tanks on the table I'll go with Epic.
-
No, I meant datafaxes for vehicles like the Land Raider Redeemer for example. Vehicles that didn't exist during 2nd edition. The Battle Bible isn't bad but what's in there I had already in store. ;)
I think there is an effort to update and add new data faxes on The Eastern Fringe also.
I thought the Battle Bible had been updated with stuff until fairly recent times.