tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1507469521763882704.post6593181951613997288..comments2022-04-09T03:03:58.857-07:00Comments on Dice For It!: Games Workshop Editions - The Good, Bad and Uglymuffinmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06874382541912694188noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1507469521763882704.post-66900825511062329732012-05-29T16:50:57.654-07:002012-05-29T16:50:57.654-07:00I always find it interesting reading peoples' ...I always find it interesting reading peoples' thoughts on the game(s) over long periods of time.<br /><br />Here are a few of mine:<br /><br />- Rogue Trader -> 2nd Edition 40K was a huge change. I was a child at the time, and thoroughly approved, and it wasn't just me. The edition was a big success. I look back on RT with fondness now, but more to the style and freedom/creativity than the rules themselves.<br /><br />- 2nd Edition -> 3rd Edition was another massive change. I stopped playing (although bear in mind, I was growing up, about to go to uni, so we can't blame it all on rules). 4th and 5th are in my opinion both just revisions of the 3rd edition. This was the one that scrapped differing move rates for units, created range 'bands', created the distinction between assault/rapid fire, created combats between units rather than between individual models, brought in vehicle damage charts and speeds vs no. of weapons etc. Looking back on it though, I think 3rd was actually better than 2nd, once you accept that it was designed to allow large games to be fought quickly. I became interested enough in it to decide to get back in the game, but when I did so, 4th was just around the corner, so I waited until it came out before buying.<br /><br />4th Ed -> 5th Ed was a tidying up exercise, I agree.<br /><br />I played WFB between editions 4-5/6 and got fed up with the mathematical calculations and the power of heroes. Also with the scale. The rules just didn't work for me at that scale. I just couldn't get my head around units of 5 men not being able to see behind them, etc. 8th Edition tempts me, as it looks a lot of fun.<br /><br />LotR and WotR are really 2 very different games. I don't think it's fair to judge the second as a new edition of the first. I haven't played much of either game, but like the rules (for both) a lot. Where I think GW really dropped the ball with WotR is a total lack of community support, including a total lack of interest in addressing the problems you mention regarding power-combos. Those, combined with the abundance of magic in what is supposed to be a low-magic setting really blew the chances of what I think is fundamentally a fantastic game from taking off.<br /><br />I'm fairly hopeful for 6th Edition 40K. I'm pretty fed up with 5th now, so either 6th will be a fun improvement, or I'll adapt a completely different rules set and convince my friends to use it instead.<br /><br />One problem I detect is that GW's business model virtually relies upon creating new problems as fast as they fix old ones. Staggering army releases over such a long period of time is a recipie for rules-disaster, and rather than aiming to fix problems, by the time the majority of armies have finally been given rules, they create a new edition to sell rather than an improved revision. Each new edition has to be different enough to justify selling as an expensive hardback book, so there's no interest in fixing what may have been fixable.<br /><br />In my opinion the core mechanics on which 40K is based are also deeply flawed. A lot of decent games have been produced in the last 25 years, and although i understand why GW won't ditch the core mechanics (and upset an awful lot of customers) I think they're working with something that is not really up to the job, given what we've seen is possible. That's not to say that GW games can't still be fun - they can. But frequently that's in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.Angelic Despothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17908669415823243782noreply@blogger.com