Librarium Online Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I'm getting back into 40k, and as I'm reading through the rules I'm constantly amazed at how the game has changed from a few years back.

There are so many things that they've changed where I think "Hey, I see why they did this, but its kinda dumb".

Like this "everyone fires at one target rule". Moronic. I have a Devastator Squad that I used as an old "swiss knife" approach. Two heavy bolters, one laz cannon and two missile launchers. Old School: Shoot the laz cannon at a tank, shoot the other weapons at infantry. New school: Waste all that firepower for a "chance" of the lazcannon and missle launcher taking the tank out.

They've also dumbed-down the entire game in the hopes of appealing to a wider audience. I mean, Orks used to have all kinds of crazy weapons. Remember the squig catapult and the shokk atak gun? Gone, and so is some of the character from that army (along with the balistic skill I see).

Tanks and other vehicles used to be absolutely deadly. Now you seldom if ever get to fire all weapons at once, and god help you if you want to field a LM Demolisher, because shooting the main gun keeps you from firing everything else if you're at a standstill. Why didn't they just say "Sure, you can shoot the other guns, but at a -1 to hit penalty". That woulda been more like it.

The lack of all that great fluff is annoying too. My old Space Marines Codex goes into so much detail about the origin of the Marines and the time of Horus that it feels like reading a good novel. My new Space Marines Codex feels more like a TV Guide. Same with the Dark Eldar. I'm glad I'm not interested in the origin of the Dark Eldar, since its certainly not in the codex.

Just seems like the game has lost so much character :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
I think parts of it have changed for the better and parts of it for worse. I remember the crazy Ork weapons you are talking about. I also remember when refractor and displacer fields offered saves IN ADDITION to armor saves. There was also no "armor penetration" rating to weapons. Back in those days the terminators were terminators and the Imperial Guard were wusses. Heck, even getting models was kind of a pain in the butt, that was the hardest part.

What about ROBOTS? Anyone remember those? Very entertaining....they should bring those back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
735 Posts
I agree wiv ya, I remember and still have all those cool Ork weapons that can no longer be used in 3rd edition of 40k. Yes I can remember robots, androids, and Zoats.
The game has evolved alot over the years, next year it will change again...4th edition is comming out....So get ready for another ride.


WAAAGH!
Warlord Hakbash
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
I would really like to see a (properly edited, indexed) set of rules that had basic rules, approximately like they are now, and advanced rules. I'd like to see some additional rules like stand and fire/modified overwatch, hiding, hit modifiers, and other options. I don't care if the game is more complicated. I'd rather play one battle that was really interesting, and have the outcome decided mainly by generalship, than to play 3-4 simple games. Too often the game is base on luck of the dice or who fielded what in their army. Give me MORE tactical options.

My biggest complaint is the poorly written rules. Ambiguous wording, poor editing, rules comflicts, rules scattered all over the place, no index. Pitiful :angry:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
You're absolutely right.

They ought to simplify save types. Save type green is basic and can be modified by incoming weapon AP. Save type yellow normally allows an invulnerable save that can't be touched except by special weapon types or effects certain characters or monsters have. Save type red always allows a save no matter what.

Then you reverse it for weapons. Green can't affect yellow or red, yellow affects yellow and green, and red affects everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
340 Posts
Originally posted by WolfRaider@Oct 28 2003, 15:55
My biggest complaint is the poorly written rules. Ambiguous wording, poor editing, rules comflicts, rules scattered all over the place, no index. Pitiful :angry:
I have to agree. You have to jump around SO much just to find rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
all the changes that where made where doen to simply stream line the game and playing time. i remeber playing orks vs tyranids standerd points (1500) and this took at least 6 hours. now its over in 2 tops. so i agree with the changes but ya some of them dont make alot of sense. and i miss bone swords :(



XG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
the game is faster but indeed, not as tactical as it could be

the thing about 2nd ed was that it was even worse than 5th ed warhammer, in that one ridiculously tooled up tank or character could destroy literally an army. Plus it was overly complicated- not only did u have to look after your troops but damage tables, endless markers etc etc

oh- 2nd had the rudest models GW has ever produced, those space marines were disgraceful (NB, some of the Orky stuff was pretty good though)

I have just found my brothers 2nd Ed IG codex.........they didnt even bother to make a complete, not to mention coherent looking army.......it must have been the 80's or something for it to be that bad.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
I think from a tactical point of view 3rd ed is the only one where tactics really matter. 2nd ed was Herohammer to the extreme, and 1st ed while nostalgic was crazily random, remember Space Marines armed with Autoguns or Lasguns? How about a Space Marine commander armed with a Lascannon, or a Conversion Beamer? In 3rd ed you actually have to come up with tactics (although it seems latley that the resurgance of Super Characters is coming back... C'Tan anyone?)

I would like to see charge reactions like WHFB has though, that would make for an interesting game. Now you would actually have to plan out whether or not it's a good idea to charge, as your opponent could just flee (or stand and shoot)... A big help for Tau that rule would be.

I would also be up for a Simple rules/Advanced rules set.... although I could see Tournaments all being simple rules... which isn't always a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
I think they've done some very good work, but yes, they need a Basic and an Advanced set of rules...

I mean, come on, what happened to Psykers? Dark Millenium anyone? Daemonic Attack? Strategy cards? Some of them were the bomb.

I have to admit though, with the problems I have at the moment about rules and arugments surrounding them, more rules make me shake a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I'll agree the simplifications are nice, but I don't see how you can claim a simplified game is more tactical, everythingstatic?

So much of it has been reduced to dice rolls now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
I definately agree, but back in second edition there was a lot of cheese, I remember that most of all, having the characters that were godly, having 3 different saves etc. That was very annoying. and btw everythingstatic, I can't stop laughing when I see your avatar. oh and the new static-x cd rox doesnt it?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top