Help support TMP


"Rules Killed off by a Second or Third Edition?" Topic


42 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Game Design Message Board


1,410 hits since 14 Nov 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

David Manley14 Nov 2012 10:48 a.m. PST

As a comparative exercise with the recent question, have any rules got significantly worse / less popular / killed off by the release of later editions?

Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 11:10 a.m. PST

Napoleon's Battles was damaged by a poor 2nd edition. What I mean by poor was that the publisher let it go out with so many typos and errors that it rendered the rules unusable. The third edition was great but took too long to come out and was very expensive.

kidbananas14 Nov 2012 11:10 a.m. PST

D & D

Personal logo Brigadier General Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 11:11 a.m. PST

Chipco Fantasy Rules

Whirlwind Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 11:26 a.m. PST

I've heard it said about Genera de Brigade and Warhammer Ancient Battles (but don't play either game myself).

I lost any interest in WH40K after Rogue Trader.

Regards

Personal logo Dr Mathias Supporting Member of TMP Fezian14 Nov 2012 11:32 a.m. PST

Many people seem to prefer AK47 Republic 1st edition to the 2nd. I don't think it kept anyone from playing either or both of them though.

Personal logo JRacel Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 11:47 a.m. PST

WH40K. When it moved to sorter ranges and either a cover save or an armor save my group hit the door running. That must have been 2nd to 3rd edition when they decided their core market group was teenagers spending mommy and daddy's money to play. Dumb down the rules and raise the prices . . . . . . ..

timmmy14 Nov 2012 11:48 a.m. PST

Im sure Bolt Action will be on this list.

Personal logo richarDISNEY of the RDGC Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 11:52 a.m. PST

40k 3rd.
D&D 4th
Shadowrun 3rd
beer

John Leahy Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 12:00 p.m. PST

I agree about Chipco Fantasy rules. Killed them dead in about 6 months or less IIRC. Pretty sad.

Thanks,

John

Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns14 Nov 2012 12:09 p.m. PST

Loved second edition WH40k… Hated the rest!

Loved second edition WH… Ditto!

thosmoss14 Nov 2012 12:11 p.m. PST

Great Rail Wars seemed to suffer too much in the 2nd ed. It was like whack-a-mole, the more rules they tried to patch, the more troubles it caused.

Patrick Sexton Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 12:21 p.m. PST

But I don't think D&D, 40K or Warhammer would fall into this category as they certainly haven't died off or become less popular.

Tom Reed Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 12:25 p.m. PST

I really like Desperado but I was really soured on the third edition of the rules. I much prefer dimpler rules to those where I have to go back & forth over a set of columns to find the result of an action.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 12:27 p.m. PST

WRG Ancients (and by extension DBM) turned me off with the 2.2 and 7.3 etc reprints. Not quite a NEW edition, but with enough alterations that a mere "ammendment sheet" issued a week after the printing could not handle them, so requiring any "serious" players to buy the new decimal edition.

You will never be able to convince me it was anything but a gimmick to sell more.

HardRock14 Nov 2012 1:10 p.m. PST

Epic was at it's best in 2nd, complete tosh in 3rd.

kyotebluer than blue Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 1:10 p.m. PST

DBM/MMMMM…9.362

Yesthatphil14 Nov 2012 1:16 p.m. PST

2nd edition Armati seemed to kill off its Renaissance supplement.

Jury's out on DBA I guess. I think 3 and 7 were the best of the old WRG editions. Time for a new edition from Neil Thomas I think grin

Personal logo Doctor X Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 1:23 p.m. PST

D&D 2, 3, and 3.5 did quite well but the only ones saying 4.0 are those toting the company line.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 1:34 p.m. PST

Chipco Fantasy Rules

It was all about pricing. The 3rd edition was too bloated and the price ($30 for a PDF!!!) was too expensive. Chipco eventually wised up and slashed the price in half. Too little too late.

ADnD 4th edition for me.

Epic (The game that came after Titan Legions) was a fantastic game. Very fun. Epic 40K not so much.

David Gray14 Nov 2012 1:44 p.m. PST

Chipco Fantasy Rules

RudyNelson14 Nov 2012 2:16 p.m. PST

The shift in EMpire from 2 to 3 was very radical and the number of players declined.

WRg when they shifted from counting casualties to a morale collapse for units . Then a later shifr from WRG to DBM.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 2:35 p.m. PST

WRg when they shifted from counting casualties to a morale collapse for units . Then a later shifr from WRG to DBM.

I think it is safe to say that WRG 6th to 7th was the killer. DBM OTOH was a rebirth of sorts. There were 3 major revisions. Was it version 3 that killed DBM?

Calico Bill14 Nov 2012 3:07 p.m. PST

I agree that Epic 40K was a disaster. Fortunatly, Epic Armageddon finally got things right and is my favourite rule set.

Sergeant Crunch14 Nov 2012 5:08 p.m. PST

While not so much with the quality of the rules, but the length of time between announcement and actual (stunted) release is CAV from the original to CAV2.

WarrenB14 Nov 2012 5:50 p.m. PST

But I don't think D&D, 40K or Warhammer would fall into this category as they certainly haven't died off or become less popular.

Ditto.

Epic (The game that came after Titan Legions) was a fantastic game. Very fun. Epic 40K not so much.

I agree that Epic 40K was a disaster. Fortunatly, Epic Armageddon finally got things right and is my favourite rule set.

I immediately thought of Epic myself. I'm a bit of a latecomer to it so I didn't 'live through' the history – Epic: Armageddon is my first taste of the TL/Epic series – but from my understanding it was a kind of years-long one-two punch. Firstly, people stay away from Epic 40K in droves, then E:A drives off most of the players who liked E:40K. Not because it's bad, IMO (I like it; love it even. It pulled the scales from my naive eyes about what a crock of a game 40K really is) but because it was too 'different' and 'not E:40K'.

I noticed Rick Priestly had a jab at E:A (and Jervis too?) in his latest W:SS column about successive editions, precisely because it 'killed off Epic'. Something to do with how it was too clever, and didn't have all the planned obsolesence and codex-creep guff that lets GW keep hocking new 40Ks every couple years…

Personal logo Ron W DuBray Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 6:24 p.m. PST

Reaper's CAV

Personal logo VonBlucher Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 7:01 p.m. PST

"I've heard it said about Genera de Brigade and Warhammer Ancient Battles (but don't play either game myself."

General de Brigade, actually ended up better with the 2nd and again now with the Deluxe Edition

John

Khusrau Supporting Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 7:05 p.m. PST

John, if you think Phil Barker is motivated by money I think you are very wrong..

Oh, and it is 'amendment' – of which I don't recall any being issued after a week, unless they were 'errata' rather than amendments.

As the most widely used set of Ancients rules, there were bound to be loopholes found, which needed to be closed. I am actually quite grateful that they took the path of issuing (free) amendment sheets that could be pasted into the original rules, rather than releasing an entire new version. That would have been the model that made money.

As for 'serious' players needing to buy the new version, from memory, many of the versions were never actually available as a printed copy. I think Phil accidentally missed out on exploiting us poor gamers there.

[QUOTE]WRG Ancients (and by extension DBM) turned me off with the 2.2 and 7.3 etc reprints. Not quite a NEW edition, but with enough alterations that a mere "ammendment sheet" issued a week after the printing could not handle them, so requiring any "serious" players to buy the new decimal edition.

You will never be able to convince me it was anything but a gimmick to sell more.[/QUOTE]

Personal logo Murphy Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Nov 2012 7:46 p.m. PST

D&D went to hell with 3.0… They realized after releasing it that it wasn't "New User" friendly….so they pushed out 3.5….then got caught up in the 4.0 mentality of "Munchkin power gaming" (ie: "Let's get the WoW players to play D&D by making D&D JUST LIKE WoW!!!!!")…and we ALL saw what THAT did to it…
Now they are talking about a "Fifth Edition."..

They got it right with 2nd Edition and should've left it alone…

OSchmidt15 Nov 2012 4:01 a.m. PST

The matter was epitomised succinctly and masterfully by Mr. Scott of the Starship Enterprise in "The Search for Spock" --"The more they rethink the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."

yorkie o115 Nov 2012 4:23 a.m. PST

I think the problem with epic is that they fixed something that didnt need fixing. 2nd Ed was great fun, but 3rd was just a totally different game. Even the basing for the infantry was different. EA on the other hand has fixed most of the problems and is a great game, but it is pretty much unsupported by GW.

General de Brigade on the other hand has benefited from experience and player input, and is now much better for it. The deluxe edition is a great game, and the book is really very nice too!

I stopped playing 40k when the 4th edition came out, different ed's of 40k just seem to be a marketing ploy to get you to buy more books, cos the rules are pretty much the same, perhaps minor changes…..but no thanks, ive already got 4 outdated imperial guard codexes, i dont want to spend £20.00 GBP on another one…

Steve

CATenWolde15 Nov 2012 2:38 p.m. PST

The ChipCo Fantasy Rules pdf fiasco really stands out, especially since they were so vocal in defense of their position on pricing even as the ship was sinking.

What's even more amazing is that people continue to price pdf's in that same price range today!

John Leahy Sponsoring Member of TMP15 Nov 2012 9:54 p.m. PST

Yeah, the loud defense made about how it was a fair price even though all evidence showed things were going south. You know it's pretty bad when serious fans of the rules are pleading with the authors to rethink their decision. This has to be one of the easiest to avoid self inflicted destructions of a fan base that has ever occurred.

They have never recovered.

Pretty sad actually.

Thanks,

John

OSchmidt16 Nov 2012 5:24 a.m. PST

So if a new edition sucks, why not just ignore it?

RudyNelson16 Nov 2012 8:57 a.m. PST

Schmidt, that is possible with rules that do not involve any tournament play. harder for those that do. Also it is hard to get new blood as they can no longer get the outdated rules that your group is using.
I know several players that still play the older versions even in tourny sets.

Der Krieg Geist17 Nov 2012 6:07 p.m. PST

I agree with CAV, first Ed is a great game. The Rage Engine stuff…not so much.

Mobius18 Nov 2012 5:15 p.m. PST

The shift in Empire from 2 to 3 was very radical and the number of players declined.
Yes. The simple melee rule became a series of morale checks and pre-contact musket fires, so many no one could get it straight. The actual melee was anticlimactic.

OSchmidt19 Nov 2012 5:45 a.m. PST

Nelson, if you say so. Can't speak to tournaments, don't do them. As for "new blood", if they're truly new, they'll play whatever the group plays. If they want a copy why not just photocopy the old rules and give them a set?
But again, I can't really understand this as I write my own rules, as do several people in my group. When I'm at their house I play with their rules.

But none of this answer the question if the new edition is a bad game, why play it?

Wartopia Inactive Member26 Nov 2012 10:52 a.m. PST

Otto, your question makes sense from your perspective: an independent and creative fellow who writes his own rules.

But for many gamers they want a standard reference point or set of rules which they can play together at ad hoc club meetings, at conventions, and often in tourneys.

A poorly received edition can kill a community by dividing it. I loved the original Napoleon's Battles. Later editons were useless to me as they didn't seem to be improvements. Lots of others felt the same way and what had nearly become the standard for Napoleonic gaming died a horrible death. Some folks moved on with each edition while others remained with their favorite older edition.

It's worse for tourney-driven systems when a game divides its community.

billthecat04 Dec 2012 2:58 p.m. PST

I'm not sure what is meant by 'killed off'… people stop playing it in the FLGS? Most games don't last long anyway, except GW stuff, and now Privateer press and FOW… most games are thus 'doomed' anyway, by that definition. Of course, availability of miniatures is a different issue altogether and effects those who play 'unsupported' or out-of-print game-systems.
Now, how many games have suffered a loss of playability or enjoyment due to a second or third edition? Not too many, IMHO, but once you get into fourth, fifth, sixth, etc… most such games have become little more than a metagaming and sales driven farce of their previous incarnations. D&D and W40K/WFB come to mind immediatley… but as mentioned, most games don't survive long enough to see a third edition…

Personal logo McLaddie Supporting Member of TMP05 Dec 2012 12:10 p.m. PST

There is also the issue of new historical information[which is always coming up] that a designer would want to incorporate into the rules besides any clean-up done on the rules incorporating errata etc.

I'm thinking of Lardie's Le Feu Sacre. The rules have gone through 3 editions and it doesn't seem to have destroyed their following.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.