Tell me about 40k 2nd Edition

[Tubehead]

I think 2nd edition was where they first started to aim squarely at tournament players and that turned me off it 100%.

Me too! Army lists kill the imagination and that is a terrible sin in my book. I remember reading a white dwarf article where they were trying to get it across to people that anything is going to be okay as long as the players agree. And then for some reason people who knew this would still write them letters asking if it was okay for players who were already in agreement to even stray from the army lists at all! The example given was that one fellow wrote in to say that he and his buddy wanted to run a game where an Eldar Death Jester teamed up with a squad of Ultramarines and was that permissible because the army lists made no allowance for such a thing. The writer of the article expressed his shock at just how many letters they were getting where people who were in agreement to experiment together were still worried enough about those pedantically-toned army lists to sit down and write a letter about it!
Of course, there's that quote from Rick Priestley in RT where he says "It's your game, do what you want with it", and the writer of the article cited that. However, he didn't mention that the reason why people probably feel that way came from reading issue after issue of White Dwarf where every character, every battle report, every new troop type is meticulously quantified in terms of points values. I have always suspected that strictly delineated points values lead to further sales as players purchase additional figs to bring their force up to a set number of points. It is worth mentioning that by contrast there are very few articles (if any) in which they encourage people to chuck the points values and experiment with the unexpected because its fun.

...the tournament scene was in ascendance...I just didn't agree with it. It became a prescriptive framework that limited...to me that just spoiled everything that RT stood for.

And that prescriptive framework also had the strong effect of deleting a large degree of the unexpected from games. Being able to field a vehicle someone invented without consideration for calculating a PV beforehand is a thrilling gaming experience for both players because both are exploring new ground together. Many times with this approach things come out a total surprise for all involved and make for a memorable game.

For a time in the late 80's, a friend of mine and I always stuck rigorously to the army lists, and we found that things were SO even that more often than not the winner would have only one or two troops left. If we left it up to agreement to decide the strength of both forces, then one or both of us would be pleasantly wrong about the way we estimated the balance, and the result was always very diverting and interestingly unexpected!
Inventing and extemporizing was very much part of the game for us, and sometimes we would suggest impromptu incidental rule ideas to one another and many times agreed to try them out.

I remember one game where my friend had about eight Ultramarines left and I had only Thrugg Bullneck and about six gretchen. Finally the gobbos broke and began to flee the field. Impulsively I asked my buddy if I could have my grots test to rally if I had Thrugg turn and shoot one of them. He laughed and said, "yeah sure! Go for it!" Well Thrugg shot one dead and that indeed put the fight back in them, so the remaining five gretchen dutifully headed back toward the Emperor's finest with the result that three of them immediately got gunned down by the Ultramarines. My last two gretchen broke and began fleeing once again. So Thrugg chased after them blazing away and missing until they all left the table edge and that was it. My buddy was in hysterics the whole time.
Here it is over 30 years later and I still remember that! I really don't remember any of our 'army list' games. There's a difference between gaming to win and gaming to have fun, and if nothing else RT taught me that it is always possible to still have a blast while losing!

 

[symphonicpoet]

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!)

Funny that you should mention that. The last game of Rogue Trader I played we lifted a small element from Bolt Action. I've really only half-played Bolt Action at a convention once, but I loved the dynamic that blind drawing marked dice out of a cup to see who would go next until the turkey die was drawn ending the turn at some random point created. So to simulate that cheaply I took a deck of cards and gave myself and my opponent a number of cards equal to the squad and approximately squad level units we each had on the table. He got one color and I got the other. To that I added a single joker. The card drawn determines who can move. The joker ends the turn. Other than that we used ordinary Rogue Trader rules. (T3 marines and all, as I recall. Though that's always an issue with us. I like T3 and 4-6. He likes T4 and 3-6.)

I had no idea Bolt Action was also Priestly. Interesting that.

 

[Tubehead]

Now that I think about it, I recall that my pal and I used a lot of Japanese model kits with bashed together profiles in our Rogue Trader games. We didn't really use the robots, mostly Crusher Joe aircars, Dougram walking tanks, etc.
(And I'm pretty sure that's where the term "Orguss Flyer" came from in the RT rulebook!)
If you did that too, you'll see some pleasantly familiar stuff below↓

クラッシャージョウ プラモ
https://www.google.com/search?q=クラッ...VGPHAKHUrgCrwQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1920&bih=937

オーガス プラモ
https://www.google.com/search?q=オーガ...XSPXAKHRCGAGwQ_AUoAXoECBUQAw&biw=1920&bih=937

ダグラム プラモ
https://www.google.com/search?q=ダグラ...Xr-GEKHeHQDFIQ_AUoAXoECBoQAw&biw=1920&bih=937

 

[Pacific]

that's some interesting points there Tubehead about use of points for games and how it places limits on what can be used and the game itself.

I suppose like it or not they were trying to create a game where two players, who didn't know each other, could set up miniatures within the same framework and play a reasonably balanced game. But like you say they did try and emphasise that the points were only guidelines and players should be fit to change what they like.
The issue then came with the 'tournament' mindset, and people starting to treat the game like a competitive sport. Which I have always thought is pretty ridiculous as the games were patently not designed that way. Even at it's most 'restrictive' (probably the edition written by Alessio Cavatore - I forget which one) people still found loopholes and the end result was just a series of blank, identikit forces.
It's why I always try and stay away from those kinds of tournaments as the games you play in them are often dull (contrast with 'narrative' events that feature like-minded individuals).

I suppose wargaming before this (with historicals) generally didn't have points values, but instead battles were set up according to historical events and setting - sometimes the rules writer would have introduced some sort of 'balance' via the setting and victory objectives. i.e. you know the smaller army at Thermopolae is going to be wiped out, but how much damage can they inflict before they do? Would Henry V have been successful with less bowmen at Agincourt? Those kinds of situations which students of history so enjoy and is really the foundation of wargaming as a concept.

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!)

Funny that you should mention that. The last game of Rogue Trader I played we lifted a small element from Bolt Action. I've really only half-played Bolt Action at a convention once, but I loved the dynamic that blind drawing marked dice out of a cup to see who would go next until the turkey die was drawn ending the turn at some random point created. So to simulate that cheaply I took a deck of cards and gave myself and my opponent a number of cards equal to the squad and approximately squad level units we each had on the table. He got one color and I got the other. To that I added a single joker. The card drawn determines who can move. The joker ends the turn. Other than that we used ordinary Rogue Trader rules. (T3 marines and all, as I recall. Though that's always an issue with us. I like T3 and 4-6. He likes T4 and 3-6.)

I had no idea Bolt Action was also Priestly. Interesting that.

I may borrow that idea with the playing cards pack - thanks!

 

[Orjetax]

SP,

The rules as written would allow you to take jump packs with ork stormboyz and they can have one heavy weapon per squad

Otherwise hard to get a heavy weapon model with a jump pack.

Next time I get to play I intend to use a character with a jump pack and rad grenades which feels very RT to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[symphonicpoet]

Now that I think about it, I recall that my pal and I used a lot of Japanese model kits with bashed together profiles in our Rogue Trader games. We didn't really use the robots, mostly Crusher Joe aircars, Dougram walking tanks, etc.
(And I'm pretty sure that's where the term "Orguss Flyer" came from in the RT rulebook!)
If you did that too, you'll see some pleasantly familiar stuff below↓

Indeed! I still have the remains of a Revell/Robotech Changers Trigon sitting around donating parts to other projects.

(Used a little bit of it as recently as the Rainbow Connection build.)

Picked up a Revell/Reobotech Defenders Commando at some point as well, which appears to be the same as the Dougram Tequila Gunner, though I later traded it away. Good times! Those are surely some splendid and useful kits. (I'm tempted to see what inspiration I can take from them if I can find something on the Bay at reasonable prices. Maybe something open box with half the parts missing. I like those. They're cheap!)

I may borrow that idea with the playing cards pack - thanks!

Youre welcome! It worked well. I hope you also like it and I look forward to your report on same.

Next time I get to play I intend to use a character with a jump pack and rad grenades which feels very RT to me

Do eet! And live to tell the story!

 

[Tubehead]

Indeed! I still have the remains of a Revell/Robotech Changers Trigon sitting around donating parts to other projects.

I think that kit originally came from Orguss which was slated to be Robotech IV in the states, optioned to Harmony Grove from Sunrise Animation along with the first three Robotech series (Macross, Southern Cross, and Mospeada) but IV never happened so we ended up with some mysterious kits on the market stateside.
My wife went out today, braving the mountains of snow we've got here, and stopped by a nearby used hobby goods shop we regularly hit to look for things she likes to collect (Card Captor Sakura figures). By strange coincidence (since I don't regularly pick up old models) she brought this to me thinking I could use it in my games...!

It's from Space Runaway Ideon. At first glance a westerner would probably think it was based on the old Martian war machines, but the cartoony feet and shape of the head imply strongly that it was inspired by Robi the Robot from Tetsujin Nijuhachi-go, which ironically ...was inspired on the look of Martian war machines.
In any case it is destined to be cannibalized for the bits it can provide as your Trigon was...

 

[symphonicpoet]

^Ooh . . . so much potential! The head and body shapes on that are really quite lovely. And the legs and arms could end up donating an endless stream of gribblies. I'm way off topic, but I love it just the same.

 

[Tubehead]

I'm way off topic

That was all my fault.
Well, what else can we say about 2nd Edition?
I don't think anyone has mentioned the jam dice that were included with the game. These replaced the RT 'Following Fire' rules for machinegun-like weapons with a special set of dice to use. Each weapon with a high output of rounds would be given a set number of jam dice; one to three dice depending on the volume of fire to be represented. For example an assault cannon got three dice. The number of hits indicated by the dice roll could be allocated amongst eligible targets. Unfortunately the downside of this idea was that if you rolled a '1' - represented by a 'jam' symbol - you would have to spend a turn clearing the weapon before it could be fired again. The problem was magnified for weapons employing more than one dice, making it increasingly more likely to roll a jam the more dice you were using. For some reason, no one in the studio realized that this would mean that WH40K would go from being "the game of grim battle in the darkness of the far future" to "the game of clearing heaps of irritating jams".
My regular opponent and I quickly decided that rolling a jam simply means 'no hits' and chucked the 'jam' idea aside...
After all, we'd played innumerable Rogue Trader games in the past and no one's weapons had ever jammed before. Why should we have to bother with this now...?
This 'jam dice' idea was meant to replace the aforementioned concept of 'following fire' which simply meant that if you were blazing away at a target with say, a heavy bolter, and you scored damage, you could shoot at another nearby target. I think the idea was to better represent varying intensities of rates of fire for the different weapons on the grounds that a shuriken catapult should put out less fire than an assault cannon.
More subtly though, it introduced a cap on the number of casualties that could result from a single burst of fire, since you could never cause more hits than those indicated by the dice total. I remember reading in WD a letter where it was reported by a player that a single marine armed with a heavy bolter had got an especially lucky string of die rolls and had blown away 75% of the opposing ork army on the first turn. The editor of the letters column expressed his amazement and stated that something would be done to amend the rules allowing such a thing in future editions. There seemed to have been a perception that this was something more than the total fluke it really was. After all, aside from the string of lucky damage rolls, wouldn't the orks all have needed to be lined up within a certain distance of one another for the following fire rule to be employed at all? Wouldn't they all need to be out in the open, bereft of any sheltering cover? Like clearing a whole board of checkers in one turn everything would necessarily have to conform to a precise set of conditions for such a fluke to occur. Somehow the production staff failed to grasp any of this and it was ultimately left to the players to ignore the resulting jam dice idea in 2E.
Usually if you ask what was wrong with 2E, you'll hear someone groan, "jam dice".

 

[Orjetax]

I like jams on the sustained fire dice.

I like the whole thing really.

And what I’ve played in recent years.

My biggest second Ed criticism is that I find the models released during the period get progressively less interesting.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eric]

The miniatures were my main disappointment with 2nd Ed, the game just seemed too cleaned up and orderly for the crazy messy world I got from the RT rulebook, where it seemed that beyond each page were more secrets of this universe you were being made privy to. 2nd was probably a cleaner ruleset and a better written set of rules, but lost something in those improvements that had sparked my interest and hooked me in. I never did get the box set, but a friend I gamed with did so we did play 2nd. I do have some of those marines that sit in my "junk" box for random paint splattering duty. I shifted my gaming to Fantasy around then I think and didn't pay much attention to 40K the game, just the books/universe.

 

[Tubehead]

I like jams on the sustained fire dice. I like the whole thing really.

My dad used to love trimming hedges. I have an aunt that was an avowed fan of laundromats.
And I confess that I have frequently experienced a thrill of giddiness while standing in line at the grocery store when it is raining heavily outside. But only when it is raining very, very heavily.
So I guess I can understand.

The game just seemed too cleaned up and orderly for the crazy messy world I got from the RT rulebook, where it seemed that beyond each page were more secrets of this universe you were being made privy to. 2nd was probably a cleaner ruleset and a better written set of rules, but lost something in those improvements that had sparked my interest and hooked me in.

That's a succinct way to put it. I felt exactly the same way. Sort of like the gritty depth and grimy "used universe" feel of Blade Runner or Dune having been transformed into the bright shiny comic book shallowness of Herculoids.
The way the vehicles were painted also became very cartoony in all the GW photos at the time. There was no weathering at all, no rust or chipped paint, no practical camo, just bright solid blues and reds, all done with lovely highlights of course.

I do have some of those marines that sit in my "junk" box for random paint splattering duty.

That's what happened to mine too! I thought the cookie cutter orks were particularly dire and simply discarded them. Why bother with the complicated and expensive practice of producing plastic 3D miniatures if they're going to look like flat paper chain dolls? I would really have preferred even a much smaller number of metal miniatures to have been included with the game, but some people like the plastic miniatures from 2E.

All this being said, it is easy to sit back and criticize something. It is better to spend one's life looking for the good in things rather than the bad. In fact, criticizing too much can make you sick! To this end I will say that when I bought the 2nd Edition boxed set (and later Dark Millenium) I was indeed HUGELY excited; I was coming from the background of having thoroughly explored Rogue Trader. If one looked at it from the perspective that 2E was a sort of giant module for Rogue Trader, then it was much like getting a big present from Father Christmas will all the updates from WD right there in one place and ready to use, and they came in a big colorful box to boot.

 

[Berkut666]

At the risk of causing a massive argument, I do think most of the difference in opinions may have something to do with the edition you grew up with. 2nd was what started wargaming for me and I have fond memories. A box of the RTB01 marines was the backbone for my space wolves army. However having played a couple of games of 2nd edition lately I admit that it’s not the most slick game.

For me RT and 2nd are trying to achieve different things. RT is more about smaller forces and giving you a toolkit to make your own story, scenarios and even game dynamics. For its time RT was great but if you use it for larger battles or as a hard and fast rule set it tends to become clunky. 2nd does streamline some aspects and take away some of the granularity of RT. This doesn’t sit well with those that love RT but it did give something more accessible to new players and allow for larger battles to be undertaken more easily. In my youth I think if I had been introduced to RT first I would not have still been wargaming in my 40’s.

If taken in isolation this looks like a huge change. But look at subsequent editions of 40k and they can all be seen to be doing the same (although some do massively change the whole experience from previous editions). 3rd streamlines 2nd, 9th is supposed to streamline and improve 8th etc.

Personally I think there are far better game systems than 2nd but that doesn’t detract from the fact is that I still love the game. Pick a game system that suits what you want to play or trying to achieve. Having tried 8th several times I don’t like it as much as 2nd. It’s way too streamlined, ends up as a mash up of troops in the middle of the table and is too dependant on special powers and command points rather than tactics. You have to remember a vast amount of command point cards. But I do like KT which is largely based on 8th as for smaller battles the command point system really works.

 

[Eric]

I do have some of those marines that sit in my "junk" box for random paint splattering duty.

That's what happened to mine too! I thought the cookie cutter orks were particularly dire and simply discarded them. Why bother with the complicated and expensive practice of producing plastic 3D miniatures if they're going to look like flat paper chain dolls? I would really have preferred even a much smaller number of metal miniatures to have been included with the game, but some people like the plastic miniatures from 2E.

Well they have nostalgia value now I guess, but at the time they seemed such a step back from the other plastic kits GW was producing. I loved converting the old beaky marines and Ork plastics. So to go from them to monopole seemed just weird. I would imagine it was in part to make the game more accessible and attractive to new players - rapid assembly without lots of trimming and gluing etc. Of course that's still the case these days, but with better sculpting so models are more attractive to all audiences.

 

[symphonicpoet]

I felt exactly the same way. Sort of like the gritty depth and grimy "used universe" feel of Blade Runner or Dune having been transformed into the bright shiny comic book shallowness of Herculoids.
The way the vehicles were painted also became very cartoony in all the GW photos at the time. There was no weathering at all, no rust or chipped paint, no practical camo, just bright solid blues and reds, all done with lovely highlights of course.

^This precisely. GW helped sell me on an aesthetic and then pulled the rug out from under it. I spent real time learning how to make my painting darker and grittier. I had too much invested. And I was always more of a roll-player than wargamer anyway.

At the risk of causing a massive argument, I do think most of the difference in opinions may have something to do with the edition you grew up with.

^Oh, doubtless. It's all about when you made that big investment. And maybe you move away from it over time and adopt new systems and aesthetics. But you probably never adopt anything else quite as quickly as that first thing when your hobby was still something of a blank slate.

In my youth I think if I had been introduced to RT first I would not have still been wargaming in my 40’s.

Ah, who knows. Maybe you wouldn't be. We're all different. But I can say that having RT as your first system isn't really a deterrent to later life wargaming. RT was my first miniature's gaming system. And a bunch of other folks here as well. Your first point is dead on, and your second about the changing emphasis as well. All of us are/were more impressionable at some point, giving that first system a little extra kick in the love box. All of us have different gaming styles, and the two systems clearly favor different styles of play, so one or the other might be a better fit for you. But I don't think too many people were then or would today be driven off from the hobby by RT if it were their first system. Some, maybe. But probably not all that many. Though then as now some would switch. And more will doubtless switch from old to new than vice versa at most points until the old is old enough to have some real retro cred. 2E is now old enough to be solidly retro. (I suppose big hair and boxy cars might also be retro-chic now. I'll let you decided if you want to participate. Or participate again as the case may be.) *quickly hides high school pictures*

 

[Berkut666]

Symponicpoet you make some excellent points. I only came at RT in later years when the hobby was already well established within my soul (all hail the dice gods!) and while I like the rule set, I don’t think it would have given rise to the amount of wargaming I now do or collect. But your right, I am possibly wrong on that point as 2nd was where I invested at the time and if I had come at art first it might have been different. My basis for logically thinking it wouldn’t have made me invest in the hobby is based on the number of other old games I am invested in and love such as BB, BFG, Man o War, WHFB, Epic (which is possibly my favourite game of all times) I play these regularly and have collected models, rule books, scenery etc for all. But nothing for RT. Your bang on the money about retro though. I play many retro games and only a few modern ones.

Being completely honest out of all the games I have ever played the one I have taken and invested into quickest is Bolt Action.

And don’t start me on big hair or boxy cars. I have had the same hairstyle since I was in primary school other than a brief period of flirting with a skin head. I also have a small number of old/retro cars tucked away in my garage that I prefer to mine or my wife’s modern cars. While that’s massively off topic it probably says quite a lot about me as a person!

 

[AranaszarSzuur]

Rogue Trader was like GRIMDARK Star Trek and it turned into Teh Epic! after they added Horus Heresy and added the concept of space fleets with huge starships. Add not being able to afford artists and trying to appeal to kids and you get 2nd ed.