Tell me about 40k 2nd Edition
- Thread starter Galadrin
- Start date
Asslessman
Baron
Well RT evolved to become 2nd over time so when the switch was made th egame didn't change much. However it was tremendously different from the original game.
From the top of my hand :
- Space marines started with T3 and a 4+ save to end up with T4 and 3+ save
- Robots rules changed from being quite simple to being utterly funny and complicated (to then disappear in 2nd)
- Close combat changed drastically from the usual WH mode (with the old "to hit" charts, meaning combat take ages) to th every character oriented CC system that was used in late RT,2nd ed and Necromunda (and got abandonned after 2nd ed)
- Vehicles rules changed a lot too from the RT core to the Battle manual
The best way to see things is that RT is the ultimate toolbox, maybe with far more tools that one can handle but a very handy toolbox nonetheless. 2nd ed is very straight forward, the use if a GM has been reduced to almost nothing and the whole game dynmaic is far more cinematic and spectacular. Learning 2nd ed is not particularly hard so you might want to give it a try for fun because it is a very enjoyable system. I personnaly liked playing using lists from th eblack codex (the one in the box that had all armies in it) but it's just a matter of preference.
From the top of my hand :
- Space marines started with T3 and a 4+ save to end up with T4 and 3+ save
- Robots rules changed from being quite simple to being utterly funny and complicated (to then disappear in 2nd)
- Close combat changed drastically from the usual WH mode (with the old "to hit" charts, meaning combat take ages) to th every character oriented CC system that was used in late RT,2nd ed and Necromunda (and got abandonned after 2nd ed)
- Vehicles rules changed a lot too from the RT core to the Battle manual
The best way to see things is that RT is the ultimate toolbox, maybe with far more tools that one can handle but a very handy toolbox nonetheless. 2nd ed is very straight forward, the use if a GM has been reduced to almost nothing and the whole game dynmaic is far more cinematic and spectacular. Learning 2nd ed is not particularly hard so you might want to give it a try for fun because it is a very enjoyable system. I personnaly liked playing using lists from th eblack codex (the one in the box that had all armies in it) but it's just a matter of preference.
Galadrin
Vassal
Cool. After a recent flashback, I realized that 40k2e was the first edition of Warhammer I played. Mind you, I was around fourteen at the time... Around 1997/1998 as a freshman in high school, when I had just joined the science fiction club and the older kids let me take part in their battles. I didn't own the rules or any models, but I distinctly remember rolling 2d6 vs 3+ for Terminator saves (and when we weren't playing 40k, it was all Battletech or Necromunda). My memories are really fuzzy, but I know I never got into 40k because 3rd edition came out immediately that year or the next and I picked up the starter box and even as a young teenager I found the 3rd edition rules boring and uninspiring (what can I say, I was always nostalgic from a early age).
I've been doing some research since posting and I think 40k2e may indeed be the game for me, lumps and all. So, what kind of resources are out there for budding 2e players trying to recapture a small part of their long lost childhood? Are their good forums dedicated to 2e?
I've been doing some research since posting and I think 40k2e may indeed be the game for me, lumps and all. So, what kind of resources are out there for budding 2e players trying to recapture a small part of their long lost childhood? Are their good forums dedicated to 2e?
Suber
Vassal
WH40K2 is my choice for a number of reasons, the most important one being that I'm relatively familiar to it; at least more familiar than RT (3rd and following are simply out of the question).
It gives me the right balance between the 'adventure' or 'character oriented' game and the quick skirmish experience, being quite a valid system for both. Profiles are easy, as well as the use of weapons. It is a simplified version of RT. I guess Dooz gave the better example, mental stats. With 2nd Ed., almost any situation can be solved either by using Leadership (or Initiative). Asslessman also pointed out the most significant changes, for me the best improvement being the one regarding vehicles (everything was made easier). Close combat is a little bit too stodgy for me, but on the whole 2nd Ed allows you to manage decent size skirmishes with enough attention to details to make your characters shine. That was totally lost in 3rd Ed.
Besides, if you still want to play pure adventure, 2nd Ed still gives you lots of options to make them terribly fun, as the limits of what you can do or not are not really in the rulebook. You can perfectly play 2nd Ed in a RT way. That's how I tend to play and works perfectly smooth for me
It gives me the right balance between the 'adventure' or 'character oriented' game and the quick skirmish experience, being quite a valid system for both. Profiles are easy, as well as the use of weapons. It is a simplified version of RT. I guess Dooz gave the better example, mental stats. With 2nd Ed., almost any situation can be solved either by using Leadership (or Initiative). Asslessman also pointed out the most significant changes, for me the best improvement being the one regarding vehicles (everything was made easier). Close combat is a little bit too stodgy for me, but on the whole 2nd Ed allows you to manage decent size skirmishes with enough attention to details to make your characters shine. That was totally lost in 3rd Ed.
Besides, if you still want to play pure adventure, 2nd Ed still gives you lots of options to make them terribly fun, as the limits of what you can do or not are not really in the rulebook. You can perfectly play 2nd Ed in a RT way. That's how I tend to play and works perfectly smooth for me
wachinayn
Serf
Like Suber, I find that 2Ed hits the sweet spot between RT's deepness and 3Ed simplicity. But keep in mind that late RT is almost the same as 2Ed.
With that said, I mix rules from other editions (like RT or 3Ed...) and games (like Necromunda, Warhammer Fantasy, Bolt Action...) or straight make changes of my own devising. The aim of this is to better suit the game to my purposes on a particular evening or scenario.
By the way, I'm constantly amazed at how reluctant so many wargamers are to mix systems, ideas or troop stats from different games or editions, while at the same time it's perfectly normal to make conversions to the minis themselves, taking parts from several sources. If we create our own conversions to suit our tastes, why not do the same with the rulebook itself?
With that said, I mix rules from other editions (like RT or 3Ed...) and games (like Necromunda, Warhammer Fantasy, Bolt Action...) or straight make changes of my own devising. The aim of this is to better suit the game to my purposes on a particular evening or scenario.
By the way, I'm constantly amazed at how reluctant so many wargamers are to mix systems, ideas or troop stats from different games or editions, while at the same time it's perfectly normal to make conversions to the minis themselves, taking parts from several sources. If we create our own conversions to suit our tastes, why not do the same with the rulebook itself?
Niibl
Vassal
Nope. All these reference cards for wargear, psychic powers and vehicles came with the 2nd ed.annagul":3o9svq4r said:
In the early nineties they seemed to have learned a few new production tricks which resulted in several card heavy games like 4th ed. Warhammer Fantasy, 2nd ed. 40K and Man o'War.
RT used tables and you had to write down a lot of things.
IIRC the first "stat cards" came with the vehicle manual where each vehicle received it's own double sided summary page.
This was a necessity due to the cross-hairs-template system which relied on a shooting target like illustration of each vehicle.
With the 2nd edition they just dropped this aspect of the rule mechanic so that the card could be reduced in size.
Pacific
Serf
It's funny how memories stick with you, but I remember being in a GW store I think probably around 1990, just when the Rogue Trader Compilation book had come out (I always get the name of that book and the other one confused - the one with the Space Marine focus in it).
Before this Marines were pretty much something like the Sardakur from Dune - 'chemically hardened' but only T3 and were much weaker than later standards. The new book introduced the whole 'genetic super warrior' thing, including the increase to T4 as well as other special rules.
I remember a guy really moaning about how you would have even *more* players playing space marines than you did already
(does this sound familiar?)
Basically you had the RTB01 box which from memory was by far the most popular boxset available - pretty much every game you saw already had marines in it. Not only were the marines cooler looking miniatures but they were more expensive in pts so you needed a lot less of them to play than the Orks boxset, which you had to buy several of (and really, although they weren't bad they didn't look as good). The Orks were also pretty weedy in the rules especially to begin with, so nothing really going for them.
Think later on you had the Imperial Guard and Squats plastic multi kits released but by that point think pretty much everyone had marines!
Eldar you saw a few of I think because of the minis, even though they were more expensive (esp after the WD issue with their rules appeared)
I didn't ever see a Slann army played - guess that's why those old minis are ridiculously expensive when they do surface now.
Did just dredge the story from memory as I do find it funny as 30 years later, you can look on a current forum and the topic of discussion (about how GW always favours marines with tons of releases) hasn't really changed! Although it is absolutely of course the case.
Before this Marines were pretty much something like the Sardakur from Dune - 'chemically hardened' but only T3 and were much weaker than later standards. The new book introduced the whole 'genetic super warrior' thing, including the increase to T4 as well as other special rules.
I remember a guy really moaning about how you would have even *more* players playing space marines than you did already
(does this sound familiar?)Basically you had the RTB01 box which from memory was by far the most popular boxset available - pretty much every game you saw already had marines in it. Not only were the marines cooler looking miniatures but they were more expensive in pts so you needed a lot less of them to play than the Orks boxset, which you had to buy several of (and really, although they weren't bad they didn't look as good). The Orks were also pretty weedy in the rules especially to begin with, so nothing really going for them.
Think later on you had the Imperial Guard and Squats plastic multi kits released but by that point think pretty much everyone had marines!
Eldar you saw a few of I think because of the minis, even though they were more expensive (esp after the WD issue with their rules appeared)
I didn't ever see a Slann army played - guess that's why those old minis are ridiculously expensive when they do surface now.
Did just dredge the story from memory as I do find it funny as 30 years later, you can look on a current forum and the topic of discussion (about how GW always favours marines with tons of releases) hasn't really changed! Although it is absolutely of course the case.
Tubehead
Vassal
Pacific":3ibesdpi said:...Before this Marines were pretty much something like the Sardakur from Dune - 'chemically hardened' but only T3 and were much weaker than later standards. The new book introduced the whole 'genetic super warrior' thing, including the increase to T4 as well as other special rules.
I remember a guy really moaning about how you would have even *more* players playing space marines than you did already
It certainly does sound familiar; I remember playing Marines vs Orks with a buddy of mine every weekend. We used to trade off as to who was playing which army. No matter what though it seemed the marines always won... and THEN GW upped the marines toughness for no readily discernible reason (which drew laughter and total consternation from me and my friend!).
...Now that I think about it, they may have done that to sell more metal Ork sets...!
Tubehead
Vassal
Suber":3gbeqj7h said:
I also have to agree with absolutely everything Suber said. The typical difference between RT and 2E is often summarized this way; RT is for smaller character-filled, more plot driven (almost RPG-like) skirmish games, whereas 2E was written generally for much larger massed armies and straight battle in mind, while characters became standardized specialist troops instead of highly variable entities. That being said, it certainly isn't the rule as there is a lot of picking and choosing one can do with the rules to get what one wants out of the game.
Personally I default to 2E game mechanics simply because the rules are a bit more carefully thought out and refined after having been extensively playtested by this point, but I prefer the vastly more imaginative approach presented in RT.
Now that I think about it I guess that's why WH40K gets less appealing for me down the successive editions; they gradually stripped away the more excellent imaginative ideas replacing them with cursory naff ones while refining the rules into unrecognizability, which was very alienating...
Pacific
Serf
Yes I am the same Tubehead, loved 2nd edition, have dropped out and come back every other edition or so (4th, 6th etc.) but nothing has matched the buzz from 2nd edition. Which, for me was the ultimate version - a tightening of the more zany bits of madness from RT, to the point where yourself and a friend could have a game in a few hours without having rule books scattered over every surface near you, but still had enough detail and character.
I think a lot of the problem I have from 3rd edition onwards was the effort to upscale and get more miniatures on the tabletop, from squad/platoon level to a larger mass combat. This lead to an increasing abstraction which then necessarily reduced the very cool individual-level activities from 2nd edition; thrown grenades, close combat duels, vehicles running out of control, the psychic phase. People's "that was such a cool game" comments switched from "my techmarine jumped into the wrecked rhino, ran over the chaos champion and then picked up the remains of the tactical squad and carried them to the objective" to "this squad wiped out that one in close combat as I rolled 46 dice". It lost something of the personal, movie-like quality that is only possible with the smaller volumes.
I think that's partly why the new Necromunda has been so popular, because it's restored a lot of that smaller scale, movie-like quality of individual acts of daring and heroism (and hilarious failures!)
For mass battle I much prefer Epic, which I think not only is vastly more affordable at that 6mm scale, but the ruleset works better for company-level combat.
I think a lot of the problem I have from 3rd edition onwards was the effort to upscale and get more miniatures on the tabletop, from squad/platoon level to a larger mass combat. This lead to an increasing abstraction which then necessarily reduced the very cool individual-level activities from 2nd edition; thrown grenades, close combat duels, vehicles running out of control, the psychic phase. People's "that was such a cool game" comments switched from "my techmarine jumped into the wrecked rhino, ran over the chaos champion and then picked up the remains of the tactical squad and carried them to the objective" to "this squad wiped out that one in close combat as I rolled 46 dice". It lost something of the personal, movie-like quality that is only possible with the smaller volumes.
I think that's partly why the new Necromunda has been so popular, because it's restored a lot of that smaller scale, movie-like quality of individual acts of daring and heroism (and hilarious failures!)
For mass battle I much prefer Epic, which I think not only is vastly more affordable at that 6mm scale, but the ruleset works better for company-level combat.
Tubehead
Vassal
Pacific":1v26uokz said:
Exactly! That's very true; that feeling of growing abstraction was almost certainly the inevitable result of GW consciously urging people to buy more and more figs- and the result was the loss of the character and total flexibility that paging through the Rogue Trader rulebook shows was originally at the heart of the game. 1E had loads of rules allowing scope for inventing your own characters, vehicles, etc; in later editions this ethic seemed to have been replaced with the cold philosophy, "we're your only source for 100% of what you're allowed to put on the table."
Tubehead
Vassal
Berkut666":3bqz4trn said:
Yes, and then FF>> and look at how it is today; so many special units options for each army that there's hardly any room to put terrain on the table if you bought it all. They aren't encouraging creativity anymore as much as slavish completism. With the prices they ask its a wonder they get anyone involved at all... The only creativity you can exercise is which units to use in a given battle and how to paint your figs ...and then they sell you the paint and tell you how to use it!
symphonicpoet
Moderator
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I never really cared for second edition. The rules felt stultifying to me, asking me to abandon some very interesting characters for much more standardized units. (I always had a fairly adventurer heavy collection.) Added to that were the cost of acquisition, since at the time they were only available with a box of miniatures I very much did not want, and my general distaste for card driven rule sets at the time. (Magic the Gathering was just then taking the world by storm and I was a bitter little child.) Add to that the coinciding "red era" paint jobs and escalating scale creep and I was quite happy to bin the whole lot.
Until I started painting a box of neglected squats ten years later. And then eldar. And then imperial guard. And then slann. And then . . .
In retrospect they're probably fine rules for a larger massed battle game. I don't doubt they play quicker. The cards probably streamline the process and save you a lot of time looking things up on tables. And as has been said elsewhere, they really weren't all that different from late 1st edition. In the end your preference might come down to what sort of game you want to play. Or where your nostalgia lays. I really only play GW rules at all for nostalgia these days. GW does great fluff, but lets be honest: There have always been better rules out there. But none of them were for boxes of awkward looking storm troopers and the Mohawk topped street punks they sought to crush.
Until I started painting a box of neglected squats ten years later. And then eldar. And then imperial guard. And then slann. And then . . .
In retrospect they're probably fine rules for a larger massed battle game. I don't doubt they play quicker. The cards probably streamline the process and save you a lot of time looking things up on tables. And as has been said elsewhere, they really weren't all that different from late 1st edition. In the end your preference might come down to what sort of game you want to play. Or where your nostalgia lays. I really only play GW rules at all for nostalgia these days. GW does great fluff, but lets be honest: There have always been better rules out there. But none of them were for boxes of awkward looking storm troopers and the Mohawk topped street punks they sought to crush.
Tubehead
Vassal
You're right, they did standardize characters more, but the 2E rules were a lot more complete as far as the figs that were out (no lightning claws or ripper guns etc etc in RT for example but its all right in the Wargear book for 2E). 2E isn't what I think of as a "card driven" game though; it isn't at all dependent on card use, really. The cards in 2E were mainly just excerpts from the rulebook summarized for ease of reference while actual gaming. You just separated out the ones that would be relevant to your force before starting and put them in front of you to refer to while gaming. It eliminated the need for little side tables covered in open rulebooks! (the vehicle datafaxes were particularly welcome as it deleted the inevitable pile of White Dwarf mags on the games table. And to their credit, WD attempted to provide further summary cards as new ideas came out of the studio.)symphonicpoet":qrkh5yey said:
The 2E cards had the added advantage that if you really wanted a randomized piece of equipment or psychic power, you could just assemble them into a 'deck' and deal some cards out at the beginning of the game. But I admit I never did that myself... As I recall, the early RT rules often referred to "randomly generated equipment" but by the arrival of 2E the army lists were the thing to use, so really, dealing out random equipment wasn't called for anymore, though the development staff may have thought it beneficial at the time.
The 2E cards weren't at all driving the action in any way as today's card-based games are. For example, Otherworld Fantasy Skirmish would be impossible to play without the stacks of randomly drawn cards that largely define game plot and what happens moment to moment. By contrast, 2E cards were just handy miniature rulebook excerpts.
However, given what they did to standardize characters in 2E (We're going to use Commissar Yarrick and Ghazghkull Thraka yet again...?!?), it's best just to mix up RT and 2E and use the bits you like, as has been said before.
2E is improved no end with the addition of characters of your own design.
symphonicpoet
Moderator
^Sorry. "Card driven" was a poor choice of words. No, it wasn't card driven so much as mildly card modulated. The cards could make a difference, but . . . so can a die roll. We do like our randomization toys. And sure, the system needed a new book to put everything inside one cover. I can't really argue with you there. I just never really cared for the changes; to the art, to the story, to the system. But then . . . I was born a curmudgeon.
All that said, I've never really understood what function marines who can't shoot really serve. The very last thing you want in a close environment with an armored bug with six arms, a bad temper, an armor piercing tongue, and a need for love is finding yourself in close combat. They look cool, and I do have a few, but were lightning claws and thunder hammers ever actually useful? Okay, on a battlefield with jump packs maybe they make a little sense. (Very little.) But in a space hulk? I'm suddenly tempted to try putting a jump pack on a heavy weapon's team to see if that works better. Drop the heavy bolter and missile launcher on a hilltop in the middle of the battlefield all of a sudden and see how that works out. Hmm . . .
Can you even do that in 2nd edition? Because I want to test this theory. And I'll play your second edition if you still let me.
All that said, I've never really understood what function marines who can't shoot really serve. The very last thing you want in a close environment with an armored bug with six arms, a bad temper, an armor piercing tongue, and a need for love is finding yourself in close combat. They look cool, and I do have a few, but were lightning claws and thunder hammers ever actually useful? Okay, on a battlefield with jump packs maybe they make a little sense. (Very little.) But in a space hulk? I'm suddenly tempted to try putting a jump pack on a heavy weapon's team to see if that works better. Drop the heavy bolter and missile launcher on a hilltop in the middle of the battlefield all of a sudden and see how that works out. Hmm . . .
Can you even do that in 2nd edition? Because I want to test this theory. And I'll play your second edition if you still let me.
Pacific
Serf
symphonicpoet - check out the 40k 2nd edition Battle Bible. I don't think it can be posted 'legally' but a google search will usually locate a downloadable PDF. Essentially it has rules + every single codex rules in one place (in the form of an MS Word document..)
I do agree that 2nd edition probably felt a bit stifling compared to Rogue Trader, although that might have been as I came into RT when I was far too young and the number of options seemed utterly bewildering!
For me it is the perfect balance of allowing some detail and individualisation, while still keeping some boundaries so that two players have got a framework with which to play each other. Some of the RT tales seem similar actually to what you read about these days with the 'open play' of Age of Sigmar, where you simply cannot play a stranger because of the potential disparity between the two forces.
It's funny that if you play Bolt Action these days it almost has the same 'feel' of squads engaging with each other (unsurprising as they were both written by Rick Priestly) and are very 'pure' as a wargame experience. I read about someone saying they were using a similar 'chits' system as Bolt Action for 40k 2nd edition, and that it worked quite well (will have to give it a go!)
Totally.. I was reading the other day actually that 2020 was a record breaking year for GW's sales. In a year when you can't actually meet anyone to play! It actually shows what the sales are for collectors and painters I think, vs. those that actually collect to play other people with the armies.
I do agree that 2nd edition probably felt a bit stifling compared to Rogue Trader, although that might have been as I came into RT when I was far too young and the number of options seemed utterly bewildering!
For me it is the perfect balance of allowing some detail and individualisation, while still keeping some boundaries so that two players have got a framework with which to play each other. Some of the RT tales seem similar actually to what you read about these days with the 'open play' of Age of Sigmar, where you simply cannot play a stranger because of the potential disparity between the two forces.
It's funny that if you play Bolt Action these days it almost has the same 'feel' of squads engaging with each other (unsurprising as they were both written by Rick Priestly) and are very 'pure' as a wargame experience. I read about someone saying they were using a similar 'chits' system as Bolt Action for 40k 2nd edition, and that it worked quite well (will have to give it a go!)
Tubehead":2wlpg7tm said:
Totally.. I was reading the other day actually that 2020 was a record breaking year for GW's sales. In a year when you can't actually meet anyone to play! It actually shows what the sales are for collectors and painters I think, vs. those that actually collect to play other people with the armies.
dieselmonkey
Baron
I think 2nd edition was where they first started to aim squarely at tournament players and that turned me off it 100%. It was simplified and streamlined for sure, but it seemed to be at the expense of something intangible, the idea of 'fun'. I know why they did it, as the tournament scene was in ascendance and there was a lot of money there, I just didn't agree with it. It became a prescriptive framework that limited what you could and couldn't do with the aim of providing 'even' battles, and to me that just spoiled everything that RT stood for.
Personally, our group just carried on playing RT as we were more into narrative gaming, so we just ignored 2nd edition altogether.
Personally, our group just carried on playing RT as we were more into narrative gaming, so we just ignored 2nd edition altogether.