RT or 2nd edition?

portman

Member
Hi Guys,

I recently picked up copies of Rouge Trader (and the 40K compendium) and the 40K 2nd edition boxed set and Dark Millennium (along with 3rd and 8th – but that’s another story).

Dipping into the rules I can sort of see where things changed in third, more unit based and no blooming psychic stage etc. but what were the changes between RT and 2nd?

Which one do you prefer playing?

Cheers!
 
I think that's hard to answer. Rogue Trader changed a lot during it's run. By the end it pretty much(but not quite) was 2nd edition.

As for which I prefer, again, hard to answer.
Rogue Trader is an awesome pseudo-RPG toolbox type deal. I am free to come up with whatever I like without worrying about canon. It is more gonzo and unhinged and flexible.
2nd edition starts to lay down the more solid foundation of what 40K becomes. Eldar, Marines and so act like you expect from 2nd edition on, whereas Toughness 3 marines being easier to kill than mesh-and-refractor-field-armoured Eldar might throw people.

Gameplay wise, balance and so on, 2nd edition is probably an improvement in my eyes. It is a bit more refined and coherent, but still chock full of detail and character. But I prefer the Higher Tech* of early Rogue Trader (So RT, Astronomicon and Compendium) and the looser feel of everything setting wise. Rogue Trader lets me play and do things no other edition really can.

I'm kind of rambling. I highly recommend playing both. Not to decide which you prefer but as general advice. There is plenty to make both worthwhile.
So I guess my advice is to swap the "or" in the title, for an "and".


*Not that people understand tech any better in universe, but there are more power fields and the like around.


EDIT:
Although you did mention which RT books you had, which narrows it down.

Hand-to-hand combat is more decisive in 2nd edition.
Vehicles are very different. In RT they work basically like creatures only with damage tables and critical hits. In 2nd they have armour values and damage tables.
Psychics are very different. From a points based version of old school warhammer magic to a card based mini-game.
The equipment differentiates more between races and a races starts vary more.
Template weapon mechanics are simpler and better in 2nd edition.

In just about every case the 2nd edition way is an improvement. There are exceptions. Weapon Jams can die in a fire and wargear cards are a bit of a mess.
With regards to 2nd edition I think it is very important to follow the advice on terrain (lots of it); and on the turn limits and victory points.
The first stops overwatch and heavy weapons dominating and the latter stops the game degenerating in the heroes killing everything.
 
Rogue Trader is like 3rd ed and onwards, almost the same combat systems, shooting etc.

I much prefer RT. The points from the army lists are pretty balanced. There are some decidedly clunky mechanics in there, but generally its a fun and quite fair sci-fi system. You can pretty much run any of the armies convincingly, and there is Realm of Chaos, which is super fun. The worst rules are the vehicles, things like Land Raiders are a chore to play with. I usually use templates for flamers too, instead of the actual rules ;) Jump packs need to ignore the grenade dropping rules too. THere are many daft exploits and power games in RT, but if you play with standard type armies or narrative scenarios then its really good. Its when you show up with halflings on power boards with chaos armour and toxin grenades that it becomes an exercise in futility.

I have not played much 2nd ed, but I have played alot of Necromunda, which I think is a better place for it. We are going to be playing 2nd ed at BOYL next year so I will be playing then. I have been rereading the rules and doing an army list. It seems like the combat system is going to be a real drag, although I seem to remember it being ok when you actually play. The chaos space marine forces for Nurgle seem VERY expansive in points, Im going to have about 12 guys in 1000 points vs maybe 60 orcs with dreadnoughts, so yeah. Im not sure the balance in 2nd is tight.
 

Scalene

Member
I stopped playing as 2nd edition came in. Partly because I went to university but also because the red period was deeply unappealing. 1st has some terrible rules (eg. area deviation), but at it’s heart it’s surprisingly playable. Take what you like from each edition- it’s your game. The points are a bit wacky so use common sense instead.
 

portman

Member
Gallowglacht":2h6tfloq said:
Hey Portman, if you do get around to playing both I'd love to hear your thoughts/battle reports.

Will do!

thanks Gents for all of your comments - I think I'm just going to have to try both and see what I think :grin:
 

Suber

Member
I think it's a wise move. Yet be careful, as they both have such different approaches. RT can be more narrative or adventure oriented, while 2nd Ed is more focused on skirmishes. While both can be easily turned into the other direction (and work fine, no matter what), you may not enjoy them as they deserve if they eventually don't fit your expectations.
I may suggest you play some of the scenarios in the books. I mean for example a game from Book of the Astronomican (or the Jadeberry Hill battle from WD #94) if you want to try RT; or any of the Armaggedon introductory games from 2nd Ed. They are supposed to be balanced and with those you will make your own ideas about how both editions work and their respective pros and cons.
 

Chico

Member
I started gaming at the beginning of 2nd ed so I've played alot more of 2nd than RT and I have to say once you played a handful of games the CC doesn't slow you down as you just get used to parting up the separate fights, what will end up bugging you though is the bloody Tanks/Bikes/Dreds ect as everything from their moving too damaging the gits adds in extra stages and tables.

I always found the balance in 2nd ed rather good with the few exceptions of Vortex Grenades and Snotling Spore weapons (And a few others that I forget now 20 odd years of beer does that to you hehe).
 

WW000

Member
I have been wondering about this, and I've come to a conclusion; I plan on playing 2nd edition rules, but like I'm playing 1st ed. Trying for scenario based games, points as a rough guide, and codex army lists used as a starting point only for drawing up forces. GM, where possible. Raiding the RT era books and WDs for stuff to import.

Basically, I think probably the 2nd ed rules are more usable overall (possibly because they're the ones I'm used to), and the WD 187 Heretic battle report is my spirit animal.
 
Here goes......

So I play both a lot. 1987 Rogue Trade is a completely different beast from 1993 Rogue Trader as the books (Compilation, Compendium, Astronomican, Siege, RoC, Battle Manual, Vehicle Manual) pretty much changed most areas of the game to a greater or lesser extent. So as previously said 1993 RT is essentially proto-2nd Ed. That being said it was a great game system and a hell of a lot of fun to play. I like the way that you can randomly generate everything so you can have some truly bespoke and individuals heroes. They are perfect for warbands or small skirmishes; and whilst it is scalable it does become a bit clunkier the more troops you throw into the mix. Let’s be clear..... I love Rogue Trader!

Second edition streamlines much of the content of Rogue Trader into a format where things are a bit fairer and armies will generally reflect the characteristics of their factions. So instead of randomly generating bits we now know ‘A Space Marine is this... and will usually do this’ whilst ‘A Genestealer is this... and will generally to this’. This makes the game easier to run competitively and ensures functionality without the need for a GM. So you gain consistency at the cost of slight individuality/customisation. This makes the game suited for small to medium skirmishes.... I have tried bigger but I’ll be honest it becomes a nightmare and you’ll just end up being sick into a bin after turn three. Let’s also be clear... I love second edition.

These days I usually use my own customised hybrid of the two system which seems to suit my needs perfectly!!

Hope this helps!
 

Chico

Member
Legiocustodes":1dpbrq5y said:
These days I usually use my own customised hybrid of the two system which seems to suit my needs perfectly!!

That's also whats known as forgetting what system/edition your playing and just fudging it ;)
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
Well, there's a big difference - RT expects a GM, and scenarios prepared by the GM and players, whereas 2nd doesn't expect a GM - and expects the players to List-build then bring-and-battle, the concept of a GM is entirely absent from the game design, and uses mission cards and whatever. Not that you can't GM 2nd, it's just not what the game is designed for, and it has a lot of consequences for the feel of the game.

Rogue trader is much, much more detailed in almost every aspect, from the rules for vehicles, flying, robots, equipment options. 2nd Edition tends to dumb down on everything to make it simpler, then adds a bunch of wacky random elements on top.

There are some major differences between the concept of the 40K universe in RT and that of 2nd Edition, one the most glaringly obvious is the dominance of Space Marines. In RT Eldar represent the most advanced, superior forces, in terms of ability and technology, and the Humans are a decaying crumbling mess, in 2nd Edition, Eldar are weaker, and Space Marines are the superior force. There is a distinct shift in focus away from a universe with a billion stars where anything, and everything can happen, to a much narrower focus on pre-generated, cookie-cutter armies clashing.

Similarities, the core combat mechanics are the same, although 2nd Edition fudges the math to make combat resolution slightly faster, giving less room for strategic play.
 

annagul

Member
I started with 2nd edition and it's the edition I have played most.

RT is more rpg oriented and it's a great system for scenarios with warbands, twenty or thirty minis and plenty of events and narrative. I really love its taste and flexibility and the DIY approach. The only change I do is add overwatch rules.

2nd is a great game for skirmishes, no big battles, but I don't like the hand-to-hand combat and the I-go-you-go (we use a activation system like "Bolt Action"). Also, you need a bit of common sense with the characters and wargear cards.

So, my choice is: RT for a narrative scenario with a few miniatures and a full of details, and 2nd for a battle with two or three squads and one or two vehicles. Later editions are too much "discover the perfect combo" for me.
 
Back
Top