War, war never changes

[Redcomet]

Saw this interesting post on Blue Sky. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Jukkiz]

"my baseline man´s BS and WS is ONLY 4!  WOE UPON ME!"

ON tabletop S/He would be equal to baseline marine with those, funny

[ZeroWolf]

2 hours ago, Redcomet said:

Saw this interesting post on Blue Sky. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I think I remember reading that issue. Truly things never change.

 

I am now intrigued to see what Imperial guard characters/assault troops were like in 2nd edition, surely they weren't supposed to be able to go toe to toe with the likes of Abbadon were they?

[crimsondave]

19 minutes ago, ZeroWolf said:

I think I remember reading that issue. Truly things never change.

 

I am now intrigued to see what Imperial guard characters/assault troops were like in 2nd edition, surely they weren't supposed to be able to go toe to toe with the likes of Abbadon were they?

 

Spoiler

 

[Magos Takatus]

Of course, close combat worked very different to how it does in the assault phase now. You used to roll the dice, add modifiers and then compare the relative weapon skill of each participant to see who won combat, with the winner being the one that inflicted damage if I remember correctly. Unless your Chaos Lord rolled all ones he was probably still going to gut that guard character due to having a higher weapon skill and more likely more attacks to stabilise unlucky dice rolls.

 

He also mentions his tanks being useless, that article was presumably from 3rd edition, when vehicles got lumbered with extremely punitive rules for moving and firing.

 

It certainly show how history repeats itself. I remember 3rd edition being a dark time when all the personality was sucked out of the game mechanics, but others will remember it differently. 3rd edition's rules were to mature the skirmish game Warhammer 40,000 into a battle game. Modern rules revisions seems to be to make the rules reflect the model kits they produce. That's why Skitarii can only be equipped with one of each special weapon... because that's precisely what the model kit provides. 

[Evil Eye]

Early 3rd edition was a weird time where the desire to make the game work at larger scales did suck a lot of personality out of the game compared to 2nd edition, and there was a lot lost in the transition...but I don't think the comparison is entirely apt.

 

Firstly, 3rd edition was the first iteration of 40K as a fully-fledged battle game, as opposed to a miniature RPG (Rogue Trader) or a skirmish game (2nd edition). GW not only hadn't got a pre-existing formula to build off of, they hadn't even tried to make something like that before. 3rd edition was arguably a bigger reboot compared to 2nd than 8th was compared to 7th, or 10th to 9th, in that the scope of the game was completely changed (by popular demand, no less). It's no surprise that it came out somewhat lacklustre in some areas. GW doesn't have that excuse anymore, having had over 25 years of experience since 3E's launch and having a formula that already worked.

 

Secondly, 2nd edition, whilst very cool, was definitely a janky ruleset. I'm not poo-pooing on 2nd, it has a lot of really nice features I wish would come back (I have the 2E Tyranid book and it's a joy to read all the cool options), and even if it's even more messy and unbalanced than what we have now at least it's fun, but objectively speaking it's got a lot of mechanical problems, even at "intended" sizes. I think 3E's simplification was far more justified compared to what 10th did (where they oversimplified a system that had already been oversimplified compared to 3E-7E's formula).

 

Thirdly, 3rd edition and the formula it created improved massively as it went on. The "3.5E" wave of Codices are widely regarded as some of the best books GW ever put out (the IG and CSM 3.5 books especially) and 4th edition as a whole was a huge step up in quality, with one notable exception [COUGH]GavThorpeChaos[COUGH]. The nice thing being, of course, the 3E books are 99.9% compatible with 4E ones, and the basic rules of 4E are just 3E with some refinements. Yes, there were still problems if you were playing at the competitive level, with Fish of Fury being justification for summary Dreadsocking IMO...but 40K has literally never ever ever been especially enjoyable in a competitive environment, being as it is a narrative/fluff-driven game best suited for play between friends who respect each other not to just use the "I win" buttons that inevitably arise from asymmetric options-heavy systems. Meanwhile, 10th has been revised so many times I'm not sure how much even remains of the initial release's rules, and by all accounts the same problems that fans of older systems complain about (pathetic customizability, poor immersion factor, overly game-y mechanics etc) are still just as bad.

 

In short I don't think the situation is entirley comparable, mainly because GW has the benefit of experience compared to back then yet has made an arguably worse product than the one they made over 2 decades ago. I mean, yes, people always have and always will complain about things changing, but that doesn't mean GW shouldn't be criticized when they make bad changes (especially when they should know better by now) and nor does it mean that nostalgia or preference for older systems is always misaimed or somehow wrong.

[DemonGSides]

I love how some people immediately came in to say "nuh-uh! Its different because!" 

 

Proving that time is literally a flat circle. 

Edited February 11 by DemonGSides

[TheMawr]

 

The top part also complains about rules simplification and complaints that the model clay is ready made.. meaning there is less variation when making a unit as when you make the clay yourself.

Then there is a part of ridiculous price increase ( keep in mind that a bowl of grain isnt the same anymore than it used to be, and this person paid HALF a bowl of grain for his army.. its ridiculous.)

In the end there is a compliment though about GWs use of the word "soon" in a realistic down to earth manner, in contrary to the ,according to the writer likely temporarily, trend of young people using the word "soon" to indicate something happening within months.. sometimes even weeks.

 

 

[Brother Tyler]

There will always be complaints about the game.

 

There will always be disagreement about what is good or bad.

 

And the Internet makes it far too easy for us to engage in pointless bickering.