I was organizing my gaming stuff, and surprisingly still have an untouched 40k 3rd edition set I got back when you could buy these sets at firesale prices on Ebay back in the day, and I even purchased a few of them just for the models. I really havent had anything to do with this set for a long time, and it was really the last version I played until Dark Vengeance came out. I remember that even though most players didnt seem happy with the rules, the popularity of the game seemed to explode at the time. It seems to me that more newer armies and codexes were released during this version than any other.

So flipping through the old rulebook, and its been years since I had done so, I have to admit that it isnt a bad rulebook. Its actually really straight-forward and easy to grasp. I say this comparing what I remember about how odd Rogue Trader was, or how 2nd edition (which I played a great deal of) was spread out over several rulebooks within the same set. I dont even remember 4th edition and I even bought the Battle Rages On expansion which I was excited about, but lost interest in 40k by then, and didn't play it. I totally avoided 5th. It wasnt until the mood, setting, models, and atmosphere captured in DV did I get curious about 40k again. I love the look and feel of the 6th edition rulebook, its a beautiful book, but even with the index, its such a big book with lots of rules and I can't play a game without having to look up all sorts of things.

3rd edition is really lite on rules. It has to be the fastest playing version of the game. Yet I know that watered down approach turns a lot of people off. Nevertheless, while the rulebook shows its age with the pictures of older models, flipping through it, I was ready to play all over again. And you know what else I liked, the army lists in the back. Even though extremely lite, and not complete, at least I have enough to play some starter games. Now, its not just a question of buying a rulebook, but you also have to shell out $50 just for a codex, before you can do anything with an army you want to buy.

So 3rd Edition Rulebook including Army Lists I think sold for $30 at the time.

vs

Latest Rulebook $85 + $50 for codex. Ouch.

I know things have changed a great deal since then, and all of the codexes needed updating after 3rd came out, but 'resetting' the army lists I think is the right way to go, as rule changes no doubt affect units abilities, and therefore can make them more expensive, or cheaper, then they should be. I think this causes a lot of issues in recent years with people thinking the game was broken. If the game version favors close combat troops, they should be more expensive, and if the rules change to favor shootier troops, then the close combat troops are less effective, and should cost less. But due to GW's release schedule, a player playing a particular army can get hosed for a couple of years until his codex is updated.

And of course, I know a codex is more complete and more favorable than a get-by-for-now list, but at least the list is there to tinker with in the meantime. I actually appreciate that.

I havent seen the 7th edition yet, but I have the new Sanctus Reach set coming. I have the feeling its going to be way more complicated than I need.

Certainly not pushing for a resurgeance of 3rd edition here. I am just saying that its a pretty complete and well drafted rulebook for its time.

3rd edition's main thing was assault was a bit TOO good; you had things like Blood Angels that had supercharged Rhinos and could assault first turn, and then walk through your entire army due to sweeping advances.

Later on you had IW abuse (Obliterator spam + Vindicator + Daemon Prince nastiness) but really 3rd edition wasn't terrible.

3rd edition might have been the best edition of 40k there was.

At my FLGS, about 25% the players right now are playing 2nd edition rules. There's a few of us who are encouraging people to take a look at 3rd edition.

Part of the reason I like it more is that everything was so overblown. It's much more in keeping with the spirit of 40k in the first place.

3rd edition was awsome. But I was BA. We had 26" charges and a HUGE death company (with jps for FREE) in bigger games!

3rd we definitely my favorite.

The original 3rd rules had problems, transports were too useful, but 3.5 with the new assault and transport rules was great.

One thing I think they got dead right was the level of detail. Saying that all CC weapons are essentially the same, as are power weapons for example.

The current rules where a power axe is different from a power sword which is different from a power maul is much too much detail for a game with 50-100 models on each side.

The 3rd edition rulebook is what got me into 40k, even if I didn't really play til 4th. Poring over those pages, that photography, and that fluff really captured my imagination in a way that few things had before.

Rules-wise, I think it was necessary to trim things down if you wanted to play the game in any reasonable amount of time, and I'm glad it's led to a more complex game now. I feel like we're in some weird mix of 2nd and 5th edition 40k, and I dig it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The original 3rd rules had problems, transports were too useful, but 3.5 with the new assault and transport rules was great.

The dying days of 3rd were just as bad, where you needed three CA books and several issues of WD for FAQ's and whatnot, plus your Codex, plus the WD articles that added to your Codex, and the rulebook. But in that sweetspot, right in the middle, it was a lot of fun.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
One thing I think they got dead right was the level of detail. Saying that all CC weapons are essentially the same, as are power weapons for example.

I was originally against that, but that was the perspective of a 2nd Ed player whose Assault Marine squad went from having different weapons to just having "CCWs". In hindsight yeah, it was a good idea then and remains a good idea now. And the game's only gotten bigger, making all those wonky power weapon rules stupid. The only thing 3rd Ed lacked in that department was scalability; a way to represent big HTH weapons that weren't power weapons but were more powerful than regular CCW's. They tried it with the Orks, but did it in the usual GW way - the flat 4+ that meant Termies hated Choppas but Guardsmen were ok with them. If they hadn't feared modifiers it would've solved a lot of problems. A simple -1 Armour Save for "Heavy Close Combat Weapons" and a -1 Armour Save for "High Impact Weapons" would've done.

I must have played hundreds of games in 3rd ed. Yes sweeping advance was too powerful, and this was coming from a guy who ran 4 trukks with hidden ork fists in every one. But assault now is terrible, shooty armies can end the game without a single one in the whole game. I also dident mind vehicles being more durable, since you could immobilize them easily enough. But at least you got a chance to hide inside for a turn if you needed to releave some pressure.

I think the codices in 3rd and 4th were the real strong suit. They were much shorter and much simpler. Every unit had it's unique profile, but having more than one or two special rules was rare. While I like some of the changes in the newer editions, the rules inflation is out of control.

The key in past editions was also White Dwarf, which posted monthly faqs (the website forum did too) and regular battle reports. Those tended to clear up a lot of rules disputes, or at least give everyone a common source reference. Today, you'll have ten gamers in a room with ten interpretations with no way to answer or resolve it.

I agree with this whole thread. I was a 3rd edition player who started painting before it came out. I played games in 3rd edition, came back 10 years later and I just feel like the whole game has become a convoluted mess.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If they hadn't feared modifiers it would've solved a lot of problems. A simple -1 Armour Save for "Heavy Close Combat Weapons" and a -1 Armour Save for "High Impact Weapons" would've done.

I still don't understand why GW hates to hit modifiers and save modifiers. Whether or not you think it's more realistic, it's simply a better system from an actual gameplay stand point that makes the weapons easier to balance. There's an immense difference between AP4 and AP3 depending on who you are playing against, but the difference between -2 save modifier and -3 save modifier is significantly easier to balance across different weapons facing different opponents.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
3rd we definitely my favorite.

The original 3rd rules had problems, transports were too useful, but 3.5 with the new assault and transport rules was great.

The problem with 3rd edition was not the original core rules, which worked pretty well, but the ludicriously OP codices that came out. Playing straight 3rd edition with BBB lists was much more balanced, as none of the units were all that amazing in HtH.

One thing I think they got dead right was the level of detail. Saying that all CC weapons are essentially the same, as are power weapons for example.

The current rules where a power axe is different from a power sword which is different from a power maul is much too much detail for a game with 50-100 models on each side.

A buddy of mine and I played a game of 3rd edition a few months back. Even with referring back to the rule book a few times, we knocked out a 1500 point game in less than two hours. Yes, things were probably a touch too lean, but there was a lot less "rules for the sake of rules, dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling."

The supplements at the time (eg city fight) and optional rules in Chapter Approved were great ways to add depth to the game for those who thought the brb too lean. Today, the brb and codices are so complicated, I can't even fathom playing with Cities of Death, Stonghold Assault, Planetstrike, or Escalation.

Would it be possible for someone to list his or her "big points" of what made 3rd so awesome? Being dissatisfied with the "modern" editions, we would be interested in trying the older ones out

Internet hugs for anyone who helps out! =)

It'd be interesting, however, how the codices would have to be bent to make them work with 3rd.

The biggest one is streamlined rules, most notably in wound allocation. The defendingly player simply pulled the models they wanted after rolling saves. (admittedly, differeing armor saves were very, very rare).

Multi-wound units simply kept all "excess" wounds noted, and full models were always pulled.

Units blocked line of sight to the enemy, so a screening squad actually had to be shot before you shot the stuff behind them.

Simpler missions.

Now, there was plenty of bad. There was a TON of grey area in the rules, which tended to only come up in fringe cases, which have added layers and layers of complexity onto later rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was a lot of bad in 3rd edition, alot of which was fixed in 4th or 5th. GW had a hard time balancing a lot of options, including blasts, barrage, powerfists (which used to be one handed!), transports, cover, etc.

It's not that 3rd edition was the best written rule set, it wasn't . It also didn't have the best internal balance. (For both, I'd say 5th edition, another edition betrayed by some OTT codexes).

3rd edition was the most focused edition, with the very possible exception for 4th edition. Meaning, 3rd edition consistently sought to be a true company level, squad based game. Individual models still moved and shot, but the game was very abstract. Terrain, wound allocation, LOS, and even weapons were all abstracted out. It lost a lot of detail, most notably with psychic powers, but it was all in service of being able to play much larger games in shorter times.

Tangent: 4th edition actually was probably the better overall edition, in that it introducted Universal Special Rules (furious charge, fleet, etc) and kept the highly streamlined nature of the 3rd edition. The reason it stays on the shelf is that while it was better in most areas, it had two major flaws. Transports were notorious deathtraps, and basically worthless unless a skimmer. More fixably, one third of missions included the "escalation" rule, which mandated that only non-transported infantry start on the board. The rest dribbled in out of reserves. It was the classic "rule nobody liked."

Yeah I should have mentioned the Simpler Missions too. They are part of what inspired my thread. Very easy to pick up a game and go.

There were a few things I hated that were introduced into the game, such as Cover Saves. Seemed pointless of sticking Space Marines in cover sometimes, since it didnt matter if they were in a building or out in the open in some cases. But I also hated rolling for charge distance in 6th, so it seems like in every edition there are things I like and things I hate.

I can't remember this off-hand, but was there running in 3rd? I know some armies had Fleet (another rule I hated), but I can't remember if a unit could forgo shooting and just run twice his movement distance. If you couldnt, and this is where it started, then I hated that rule too.

Sometimes GW just comes up with some crazy ass rules sometimes.

There was no running until 5th edition.

Cover saves existed in 3rd edition, they just didn't come up as much, because friendly units didin't give cover (although they did block LOS!)

One bad: guess range on barrage weapons. Don't believe people who say guess range was good. While a fun concept it led to lots of unintentional cheating, laying the tape measure in the movement phase so it would help you gauge the range to target.

 TheSilo wrote:
One bad: guess range on barrage weapons. Don't believe people who say guess range was good. While a fun concept it led to lots of unintentional cheating, laying the tape measure in the movement phase so it would help you gauge the range to target.

yeah, Barrage weapons (called, IIRC, guess range in the book) were a pretty half baked concept in the 3rd edition BBB. I think they just kept the traditional guess range from Warhammer and other wargames. Interesting side note: only a small handful of weapons were guess range, including the IG mortar and Griffon, but not the basilisk. It was direct fire in the BBB, with the 3rd edition codex introducing the option to fire indirectly. It wasn't until the 5th edition codex that you had to play the basilisk as indirect.

Psychic powers were a really, really minimal aspect of the game. Probably too much.

 Polonius wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
One bad: guess range on barrage weapons. Don't believe people who say guess range was good. While a fun concept it led to lots of unintentional cheating, laying the tape measure in the movement phase so it would help you gauge the range to target.

yeah, Barrage weapons (called, IIRC, guess range in the book) were a pretty half baked concept in the 3rd edition BBB. I think they just kept the traditional guess range from Warhammer and other wargames. Interesting side note: only a small handful of weapons were guess range, including the IG mortar and Griffon, but not the basilisk. It was direct fire in the BBB, with the 3rd edition codex introducing the option to fire indirectly. It wasn't until the 5th edition codex that you had to play the basilisk as indirect.

Psychic powers were a really, really minimal aspect of the game. Probably too much.

Yea there was a whole rules section on how psykers worked, but there were almost no psykers available except SM librarians and Eldar farseers.

 Polonius wrote:
There was no running until 5th edition.

Cover saves existed in 3rd edition, they just didn't come up as much, because friendly units didin't give cover (although they did block LOS!)

You could move double your rate in 2nd Ed if you dropped your shooting phase….

Fleet was the original 'run' except you were able to charge after moving d6.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Would it be possible for someone to list his or her "big points" of what made 3rd so awesome? Being dissatisfied with the "modern" editions, we would be interested in trying the older ones out

Internet hugs for anyone who helps out! =)

It'd be interesting, however, how the codices would have to be bent to make them work with 3rd.

The biggest one for me is the relative lack of special rules in the army lists. Special rules are now piled on top of special rules, to counter special rules which are specially ruled to fight against the core rules. In 3rd and 4th ed they were used relatively sparingly and were much simpler, whereas now almost every single unit has a fairly complex special rule. There was much less rulebook-flipping (one of my pet hates) since no-one had to try and argue the point over which special rule takes precedence.

So modern codex's wouldn't work at all for that simple matter unfortunately.

I think that anyone can write special rules to give a unit character or a unique battlefield role, but the mark of a great games designer is one who can take the existing universal special rules and use a combination of them and model stats to define its battlefield role.

 Polonius wrote:

 TheSilo wrote:
Psychic powers were a really, really minimal aspect of the game. Probably too much.

Yeah thats one thing I remember too. It seemed like for awhile GW wanted to pretend Psykers didnt exist. I think the psychic rules in 2nd were too time-consuming, and sometimes over-powering, and it seems like 3rd went too far in the other direction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:
Fleet was the original 'run' except you were able to charge after moving d6.

Yeah but not everyone could do it. And i still hate rolling for that.

Wait...4th edition was the one with the Hammer & Skull cover right? We should still have that one in our cellar...in a box...somewhere...

 Daedleh wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Would it be possible for someone to list his or her "big points" of what made 3rd so awesome? Being dissatisfied with the "modern" editions, we would be interested in trying the older ones out

Internet hugs for anyone who helps out! =)

It'd be interesting, however, how the codices would have to be bent to make them work with 3rd.

The biggest one for me is the relative lack of special rules in the army lists. Special rules are now piled on top of special rules, to counter special rules which are specially ruled to fight against the core rules. In 3rd and 4th ed they were used relatively sparingly and were much simpler, whereas now almost every single unit has a fairly complex special rule. There was much less rulebook-flipping (one of my pet hates) since no-one had to try and argue the point over which special rule takes precedence.

So modern codex's wouldn't work at all for that simple matter unfortunately.

I think that anyone can write special rules to give a unit character or a unique battlefield role, but the mark of a great games designer is one who can take the existing universal special rules and use a combination of them and model stats to define its battlefield role.

This, this, this. During most games you only needed the summary page of your codex to check everyone's stat profiles. The crazy amount of new unique (and some universal) special rules makes it very difficult to determine the intended rule without lots of page flipping.

3RD got me into the game. 4th was awesome. 4th turned me into a traveling tournament player in love with all things GW. I tried to play a different army at every event. Well supported events were all over the county. I became a pretty good mini painter. I made terrain to match my armies. The hobby was fun. It was a blast. I picked up fantasy after a bit too.

5th was the beginning of the end. The beginning of random charts and true line of sight and all things stupid were put into the rules. Jervis Johnson held greater sway over the rules of all GW games. RIP GW.

Look what we have now. GW games are a wasteland compared to what they used to be. Such a waste.


Fire Jervis Johnson.


Thank God for Privateer Press. Did any of you watch the World Champ vids on their YouTube channel? Pretty awesome. They do it right. Gaming by gamers for gamers.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Would it be possible for someone to list his or her "big points" of what made 3rd so awesome? Being dissatisfied with the "modern" editions, we would be interested in trying the older ones out

Internet hugs for anyone who helps out! =)

It'd be interesting, however, how the codices would have to be bent to make them work with 3rd.

The biggest one for me is the relative lack of special rules in the army lists. Special rules are now piled on top of special rules, to counter special rules which are specially ruled to fight against the core rules. In 3rd and 4th ed they were used relatively sparingly and were much simpler, whereas now almost every single unit has a fairly complex special rule. There was much less rulebook-flipping (one of my pet hates) since no-one had to try and argue the point over which special rule takes precedence.

So modern codex's wouldn't work at all for that simple matter unfortunately.

I think that anyone can write special rules to give a unit character or a unique battlefield role, but the mark of a great games designer is one who can take the existing universal special rules and use a combination of them and model stats to define its battlefield role.

This, this, this. During most games you only needed the summary page of your codex to check everyone's stat profiles. The crazy amount of new unique (and some universal) special rules makes it very difficult to determine the intended rule without lots of page flipping.

This is one thing thats bothering me about 40k. I hate seeing a unit on the table top and just knowing that there is a whole set of mysterious special rules that I know nothing about it. You used to be able to just look a unit, see its wargear, see weathers infantry or bikes or whatever, and you know what the unit is capable of. Now the unit has something extra that you can't see.

Holy crap. 4th only has 100 pages of rules. That's HALF of 7th. I remembered it having the same amount of pages but then (I found it in our cellar!) saw that 100+ pags are fluff and - I gak you not - INSTRUCTIONS on how to make CUSTOM, yes, SCRATCH-BUILT terrain.

We're 9 people right now interested in having a look at older editions. Now we gotta work on transitioning new models into the older rules, e.g. Ghost Arks.

I've always been of the mindset that the 3/4 edition rules were the very best for large engagements, and that the 2nd edition rules were perfect for small, (almost) Necromunda-sized skirmishes, where a marine army had something to the scale of a hero (even just a very low-level one), a tac squad split into 2 combat squads, a trio of bikes(or an assault squad), and maybe a vehicle.

I have absolutely no interest pouring through pages upon pages of "universal" special rules. 4th edition's technically weren't bad for quantity, but since then it has become horribly bloated.

I kinda thought that the era right after the 4th edition rules dropped, where 3rd edition codexes were still being used. That way you automatically had the "trial" vehicle and assault rules as standard in one book with the rest of the rules, so you didn't "need" to carry around the CA books unless you were playing an oddball army list, like Kroot Mercs (like I was).

Plus, if you want vehicles from nowadays for games governed by 3/4 rules, just use the Vehicle Design Rules. People always claimed they were overpowered, but if I remember right, the authors themselves said that as long as you weren't going hog-wild, the rules routinely actually over-costed vehicles. Like a Leman Russ would actually come out more expensive if built with the VDR rules.

dresnar1 wrote:
3RD got me into the game. 4th was awesome. 4th turned me into a traveling tournament player in love with all things GW. I tried to play a different army at every event. Well supported events were all over the county. I became a pretty good mini painter. I made terrain to match my armies. The hobby was fun. It was a blast. I picked up fantasy after a bit too.

5th was the beginning of the end. The beginning of random charts and true line of sight and all things stupid were put into the rules. (..)

Agreed (though disagree on the comments about JJ - he's just got a different idea of game to what I want).

4th was my favourite. I felt like it was a tidied up 3rd edition, though I'm aware that the codex's started to run away with Special Rules towards the end.

Abstract terrain LoS (though vehicles were not abstracted - not many people realised this!) meant that LoS blocking terrain was very common and made for an interesting game full of tactical manoeuvres and decisions. With True LoS, you very rarely have LoS blocking terrain and the game simply becomes a case of target priority, rather than tactical manoeuvring. It was also much quicker without having to bend down to check who could/couldn't see through terrain and having the ensuing argument about it.

Since I've mentioned movement, it's a prime example of the escalation of Special Rules. In 3rd ed, Fleet of Foot was extremely rare, IIRC only available to Eldar and Tyranids. They were the only exceptions to the core movement rules. Throughtout 3rd/4th ed a few units got some movement related special rules (such as Red Paint Job giving +1" movement), but now almost every single unit has got access in some form or another to a movement based special rule. Not only are these extra special rules to memorise, and not knowing instantly by looking at the units statline, but they also conflict with others and become a headache to remember - especially when they all interact differently with things like terrain.

I still think that removing the Movement stat was a mistake, but I could live with their only being odd exceptions to the movement rules. Now everything is an exception, and it would save so much time, energy and ink if they just stuck the movement stat back in.

All I have to say is that with 20 years of experience in 40K, if I wanted to teach my wife to play with me, I would use the 4th edition rulebook, and 3rd edition codexes. Many of the Universal Special rules in 4th were easy to attach to the units they belonged to without having to actually have the keyword in the codex entry. Now, sometimes there would be very slight exceptions, such as using the 2006 Eldar Codex over the 3rd edition one, as the 3rd edition one had horribly overcosted units, and Autarchs really added fun to the army over just having Farseers as HQ all the time.

But man, remember cool fringe armies like the Space Wolves 13th company and the Kroot Mercs? Fun, imaginative things like that really complimented the simpler rulesets of that era. Especially since such fringe armies actually had simpler special rules than the core armies do now!

3rd got me into 40k. played heaps of it in high school and then nothing until 6th. Definitely agree, i still have my old 3rd ed rulebook and it was very straightforward (even if they did say explicitly to roll a dice for anything they haven't covered). It was also cool how you got all the basic army lists in the book too, so you could pick up and play straight away. I could see how THAT would lose a lot of money for GW lol

GA with this calculator is 110 pts (used AV 12 to reflect the initial AV 13), adding a few points for the reviving would be fair. Or I could just leave it out.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Holy crap. 4th only has 100 pages of rules. That's HALF of 7th. I remembered it having the same amount of pages but then (I found it in our cellar!) saw that 100+ pags are fluff and - I gak you not - INSTRUCTIONS on how to make CUSTOM, yes, SCRATCH-BUILT terrain.

We're 9 people right now interested in having a look at older editions. Now we gotta work on transitioning new models into the older rules, e.g. Ghost Arks.

Ah yes, I remember when every codex featured modeling advice and how-to's on building terrain from cereal boxes and foam core. Though including fluffy pictures in the erstwhile "Reference" section is my personal pet peeve. The unit profiles alone take up 16 pages in the IG iBook because of all the pictures and fancy borders.

And the rules have gotten crazy. There's not a bike, jet bike, or jump pack infantry unit that has to take dangerous terrain tests anymore. Assault rules are such a pain, with pile in moves you have to move models multiple times.

My favorite ridiculous example of rules inflation is the 130 words in the IG codex to describe the chimera lasgun arrays, a weapon that you wouldn't otherwise pay 2 points for:

“A Chimera has two separate arrays of three lasguns – one array located above each side of its hull. Up to six models in the embarked unit (a maximum of three per array) may fire one lasgun each from these lasgun arrays, provided those models are not using the Chimera’s Fire Points this turn. To represent the unusual nature of these weapons, use the Chimera’s Ballistic Skill for these shots – the lasgun arrays can shoot at this Ballistic Skill regardless of how far the Chimera has moved. If the Chimera has suffered a Crew Stunned or Crew Shaken result, the lasgun arrays can only make Snap Shots. Lastly, each array may shoot at a different target to the Chimera’s other weaponry, though all lasguns in the same array must shoot at the same target.”

“A Chimera has two separate arrays of three lasguns – one array located above each side of its hull. Up to six models in the embarked unit (a maximum of three per array) may fire one lasgun each from these lasgun arrays, provided those models are not using the Chimera’s Fire Points this turn. To represent the unusual nature of these weapons, use the Chimera’s Ballistic Skill for these shots – the lasgun arrays can shoot at this Ballistic Skill regardless of how far the Chimera has moved. If the Chimera has suffered a Crew Stunned or Crew Shaken result, the lasgun arrays can only make Snap Shots. Lastly, each array may shoot at a different target to the Chimera’s other weaponry, though all lasguns in the same array must shoot at the same target.”

Meanwhile, in 2nd Edition land (at least in the Battle Bible - but I doubt the actual codex is much different).........

.....In addition, the Chimera has 3 Lasguns on each side (for a total of 6) with a 180 degree arc to either side, which may be fired by transported models.

*Note that back in those hoary old days any and all vague-ness that might arise from the above sentence were fixed with a mention of "No, you can't do that- don't be dumb."

Oh I forgot I hate the rule where units can only fire at one target. So a tactical squad with a missile launcher who wants to shoot at a tank, wastes all of the other 9 guys bolters who could fire at a nearby infantry squad. Hate hate hate that rule and it started in 3rd.

I can understand in GIGANTIC games, this rule would help, but in typical 40k games, nonsense.

I loved 2nd edition, and agree its better for small games, but it took a looonng time to play out our larger games, but man it had a lot of color, random events, and was a lot of fun regardless. Things got darker when 3rd came along.

That is a rule that sucks. I always thought it should have been like in the sci-fi game AT-43 where each type of weapon in an infantry unit could be fired at a separate target. I may be wrong but I think 7th edition 40K now does this?

No 7th doesnt do this.

When I first started playing this was the rule that almost stopped me getting into wargaming. Now I never give my troops weapons that contradict the squads weapons. Just to justify having the weapons in the first place.

I loved the 3rd edition rulebook. Awesome piece of writing. Loved the campaign advice, the fluff, the battle report in the front, army lists in the back, custom terrain modeling. It's all there. Never played a game of it though (was in grade school when I bought the book and poured over it). 4th edition was when I started playing.

However, I prefer shooting to assault. Always have and most likely always will. That and the fact that the only army I've ever collected is Tau and they don't have any rules in the book combine enough to make me prefer newer editions.

Honestly my ideal rule-set would be 6th or 7th edition with a couple changes. Do something about charge range, allow consolidating into combat (but in the name of all that is holy don't actually resolve it until the next turn), also a special rule that allows assaulting out of reserves to give to elite CC units like Warp Talons or Genestealers/Lictors to actually make them worth something.

4th Edition is one of my favorites. Third had a lot of strong points. But Fourth had certain things that were incredible. From extremely customisable armies to making your army only have artificer armor but making them incredibly durable. It was quite cool.

Fourth edition if you played it right Chaos and Space Marines had the Best Lists possible. If you wanted elite kill teams you had it, The wargear options allowed you a 100 points per a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KTG17 wrote:
Oh I forgot I hate the rule where units can only fire at one target. So a tactical squad with a missile launcher who wants to shoot at a tank, wastes all of the other 9 guys bolters who could fire at a nearby infantry squad. Hate hate hate that rule and it started in 3rd.

I can understand in GIGANTIC games, this rule would help, but in typical 40k games, nonsense.

I loved 2nd edition, and agree its better for small games, but it took a looonng time to play out our larger games, but man it had a lot of color, random events, and was a lot of fun regardless. Things got darker when 3rd came along.

Me and my friends and a bunch of players in the store thought it was stupid and got rid of the rule while we played the games. Because we thought they were dumb and didn't make any sense in the setting.

GorillaWarfare wrote:


This is one thing thats bothering me about 40k. I hate seeing a unit on the table top and just knowing that there is a whole set of mysterious special rules that I know nothing about it. You used to be able to just look a unit, see its wargear, see weathers infantry or bikes or whatever, and you know what the unit is capable of. Now the unit has something extra that you can't see.

This bothers me a lot. Add to it that no one paints their GD models. I have to ask, "if you were me, what is more dangerous?" before shooting half the time. Bollocks.

VanHallan wrote:

GorillaWarfare wrote:


This is one thing thats bothering me about 40k. I hate seeing a unit on the table top and just knowing that there is a whole set of mysterious special rules that I know nothing about it. You used to be able to just look a unit, see its wargear, see weathers infantry or bikes or whatever, and you know what the unit is capable of. Now the unit has something extra that you can't see.

This bothers me a lot. Add to it that no one paints their GD models. I have to ask, "if you were me, what is more dangerous?" before shooting half the time. Bollocks.

Thats why before a Match, me and my friends tell each other what units had special rules and what didn't and showed them the codex and helped them understand who had rules and what I had to sacrifice in order to get those rules.

KTG17 wrote:So 3rd Edition Rulebook including Army Lists I think sold for $30 at the time.

vs

Latest Rulebook $85 + $50 for codex. Ouch.

You should see what's happened to the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef over that same time frame. And look at how much more you're getting as well.

Anyways...

KTG17 wrote:I love the look and feel of the 6th edition rulebook, its a beautiful book, but even with the index, its such a big book with lots of rules and I can't play a game without having to look up all sorts of things.

3rd edition is really lite on rules.

I think this is somewhat of an illusion. The reason being that in 3rd ed, they had a handful of rules in the rulebook, and then basically every single unit in the game had their own crazy special rules in their codices.

One of the reasons why the new version of the rules is so much bigger is because of the changeover to universal special rules. In 3rd edition, if you had a hellhound, you had to explain "it's like a flamer weapon that uses the regular template, except I can put the narrow part of the template anywhere within 12" of the gun, and I can twist the template any way I want from there so long as the narrow part is closer than the fat part, and I follow all the other rules for flame weapons."

Now, I say "it's S6 Ap4 torrent". Done.

Plus, of course, there's a lot of stuff that's been added over time. There weren't chariots or fliers in 3rd ed, etc. etc. There was just less game to the game.

Also, I don't feel particularly nostalgic for 3rd ed, even though that's when I started playing, so I should. I don't know if we need to go back to the days of screener units casting invincibility on the entire army behind them or having to literally guess with guess range weapons.

I agree that 4th improved on 3rd, but I also say that 5th improved on 4th. All three editions were sort of the same game, except 5th just did everything right with the exception of wound wrapping and TLoS. Excepting those two rules, though, everything else more or less moved forwards in the right direction over those changes. It's like they made third, and spent the next two editions fixing it up and polishing it.

I'm actually kind of looking forward to a far-off 8th edition, as it will be sort of the 5th of 6th.

 Ailaros wrote:

You should see what's happened to the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef over that same time frame. And look at how much more you're getting as well.

You're saying the price of ground beef has risen by almost 200% in those few years? Crazy place you live in.

I remember a time that was not long ago at all where a Space Marine Battleforce costed 500 crowns.

I just checked the GW website, and the added cost of all the units the Battleforce included back then is 1200 crowns.

The difference is absurd and FAR beyond what inflation could hope to explain.

(For reference; 6-7 crowns equals a dollar.)

3rd edition was horrendous and made me quit 40k for 10 years

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

You should see what's happened to the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef over that same time frame. And look at how much more you're getting as well.

You're saying the price of ground beef has risen by almost 200% in those few years? Crazy place you live in.

I remember a time that was not long ago at all where a Space Marine Battleforce costed 500 crowns.

I just checked the GW website, and the added cost of all the units the Battleforce included back then is 1200 crowns.

The difference is absurd and FAR beyond what inflation could hope to explain.

(For reference; 6-7 crowns equals a dollar.)

yep.

Ashiraya wrote:I remember a time that was not long ago...

Yes, and I remember when you could get a 20oz soda from a vending machine for a dollar and when gas was 80 cents a gallon. Blah, blah, blah.

Prices go up. Welcome to centralized banking.

Make a specific comparison over a serious length of time for a product with similar levels of quality improvement. Or, you know, make vague "back in my day" statements that have no real meaning other than as a conduit for grousing...

I agree with most all. I started in 3rd ed and miss it dearly. Solid rules, had lots of fun. I liked giving my guys power axes, swords, spears and maces and having them all count as the same weapon, it was so much easier than now days. I love building the transports and tanks, and they were worth taking in 3rd ed.

But all in all I think my favorite edition was 5th.

 Ailaros wrote:

Ashiraya wrote:I remember a time that was not long ago...

Yes, and I remember when you could get a 20oz soda from a vending machine for a dollar and when gas was 80 cents a gallon. Blah, blah, blah.

Prices go up. Welcome to centralized banking.

Make a specific comparison over a serious length of time for a product with similar levels of quality improvement. Or, you know, make vague "back in my day" statements that have no real meaning other than as a conduit for grousing...

Believe it or not, this was not back in the eighties. It was 2006-2007 somewhere?

Centralised banking totally justifies bumping a product up to 240% of its price, right, totally.

Believe it or not, Ailaros, but GWs pricing has actually been rising more than other products. ( what a revelation! except not)

Allaros' seems to work in acadamia. I suppose the cost of college tuition in the US is also reflective of simple supply and demand, no?

If you really think the quality of the product has gone up in anywhere near the proportion of the price of the product I think I could find some really neat stuff to sell you, Allaros.. haha.

VanHallan wrote:
Allaros' seems to work in acadamia. I suppose the cost of college tuition in the US is also reflective of simple supply and demand, no?

If you really think the quality of the product has gone up in anywhere near the proportion of the price of the product I think I could find some really neat stuff to sell you, Allaros.. haha.

Like a bridge in Brooklyn maybe?

I too started in 3rd. I was only 14 and I played BA, but I remember it very fondly. I miss the rules simple enough for kids years younger than myself to firmly grasp them. I miss a game priced such that a highschool sophomore flipping burgers could afford to play it. I miss the gamesdays, GW product support and the ability to truly immerse myself in the 40k universe. But most of all I miss a time when the game that was designed to be played, not just sold.

"I too started in 3rd. I was only 14 and I played BA, but I remember it very fondly. I miss the rules simple enough for kids years younger than myself to firmly grasp them. I miss a game priced such that a highschool sophomore flipping burgers could afford to play it. I miss the gamesdays, GW product support and the ability to truly immerse myself in the 40k universe. But most of all I miss a time when the game that was designed to be played, not just sold. "

OFT

I started with 3rd and loved watching it morph slowly into 4th. 4th ed. was the best, by far the most fun I've had with this game. Its been a steady decline ever since in pretty much all aspects.

 Ailaros wrote:

KTG17 wrote:So 3rd Edition Rulebook including Army Lists I think sold for $30 at the time.

vs

Latest Rulebook $85 + $50 for codex. Ouch.

You should see what's happened to the price of a gallon of gas or a pound of ground beef over that same time frame. And look at how much more you're getting as well.

Anyways...

Food and fuel are terrible indicators of actual inflation since they are commodities and their prices fluctuate dramatically. Consumer and durable goods would be better comparisons, but that wouldn't make your point, would it?

As for getting more in a boxed set: last time I checked, a box of Space Marines still just made 10 Space Marines. Adding a few more cents of plastic bits and bobs on a sprue doesn't equate to value added.

Ailaros wrote:

KTG17 wrote:I love the look and feel of the 6th edition rulebook, its a beautiful book, but even with the index, its such a big book with lots of rules and I can't play a game without having to look up all sorts of things.

3rd edition is really lite on rules.

I think this is somewhat of an illusion. The reason being that in 3rd ed, they had a handful of rules in the rulebook, and then basically every single unit in the game had their own crazy special rules in their codices.

I like USRs for simplicity's sake. However, to cherry-pick a unit from the IG codex and then go on to say that "every single unit in the game had their own crazy special rules" is ludicrous. That's far more common in a later codex than it ever was in 3rd Edition.

Ailaros wrote:Plus, of course, there's a lot of stuff that's been added over time. There weren't chariots or fliers in 3rd ed, etc. etc. There was just less game to the game.

Chariots? Who actually uses chariots in their lists? As for flyers, they're one of the worst things that's been added to the game. Just like super-heavies, they should be an optional part, a la Apocalypse. But, that doesn't sell models, so cram it into 40K.

Ailaros wrote:
I'm actually kind of looking forward to a far-off 8th edition, as it will be sort of the 5th of 6th.

I'm looking forward to 8th Edition, too. But only in the sense that I hope it leads to a complete reboot where they realize the terrible mess they've made of the rules.

As a result of IW abuse in the 3rd ed Chaos codex, Chaos Space Marines were never allowed to customize anything every again. At least, that's why I think chaos has no options now. I try to tell myself that GW has reasons for the decisions they make.

Rule wise, Chaos Space Marines are like slightly more bland Ultramarines now.

Well, I certainly enjoy everyone's input on the various pros and cons of the the various editions, and I certainly have mentioned what i didn't like about third -

oh found another - hated dedicated transports. For small games I liked the idea of a Razorback running around on its own.

But everything I have mentioned can be resolved with house rules with friends. I did play a few games with people I didnt know at stores, and to be honest, while I adjusted to the system there were a whole lot of issues I wish I didnt have to accept.

BUT, my specific point was the rulebook itself, not the rules per say. Even if some of the complaints I had were reversed, I doubt they would take up much more room than the rules already took up. So between the art, fluff, rules, modeling, simplier missions, get-by army lists, its a pretty complete rulebook. Thats all I am saying.

And as for prices going up, yes I think its ridiculous to bring up food and gas in comparison, but since someone did, if I were to take

3rd edition rulebook including get-by army lists for $30

and compare that to whats out now that I would have to get to play a game, and have some stats of the armies to try out:

Rulebook $83
Space Marine Codex $50
Dark Eldar $40?
Ork Codex $50
Tyranid Codex $50
Eldar Codex $50
Chaos Marine Codex $50
Daemons Codex $50
Astra Militarium Codex $50

Good lord.

And I know there is a lot more for each army in the codexes, and you need one if you are going to properly invest in an army, or at all if you are playing a new edition. The point I am trying to make is that with that single rulebook, I can throw together a game of Space Marines vs Eldar or Orks vs Chaos right away, whereas all I need is some minis. Now days, its a serious investment in just getting started because after the rulebook which provides nothing on any army, you have to buy a codex to really see if you like playing them. That is a big part of why I appreciate the 3rd edition rulebook, even if its army lists left out a lot of goodies, or that the codexes changed some things. Its a great way to get started.

And no, I dont think the price of meat or gas comes anywhere near close to this.

I like power swords, axes, and maces. I think I would miss those.

My favourite era was the 3rd/4th. My favourite codex was Eye of Terror, and I was really into the scratch building projects and painting tips. Back then, a codex wasn't just an army list, but a manual (although very brief) of how to participate in the hobby. Though I suppose you can argue that with the internet, those hobby sections aren't really needed anymore.

Oh, and rules wise, abstract terrain and defensive weapons (that was 4th edition, right?). I thought abstract terrain was the best. It made a fight on a jungle themed table feel like a fight in a jungle! (remember codex catachans?)

 dementedwombat wrote:
I loved the 3rd edition rulebook. Awesome piece of writing. Loved the campaign advice, the fluff, the battle report in the front, army lists in the back, custom terrain modeling. It's all there.

Totally agree with this. Even tho I never played a campaign I always wondered how cool that might be. Interesting reading.

However I laugh at that battle report. I am glad its there and think all rulebooks should come with one, but I thought either Gavin didnt know what he was doing, or it was scripted to have Andy Chambers win. I think if the Falcon and Vyper held back and picked off the Terminators from a distance, it would have been a very different battle.

But glad it was included!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know another thing I think 3rd suffered from is that since the rules were so lite in the rulebook, and various skills and rules expanded on in the codex, I believe there was confusion and issues even with rules overlapping or sometimes the same rule description being call different things in different codexes, which is ok I guess, but worse when two rules shared the same name in different codexes, and actually had different rules. I do like centrally defined skills and rules, but then again, looking at the new codexes, I think I saw references to skills and rules in the rulebook, and then new ones in the codex, so I guess we are screwed no matter what we do. The rulebooks cant anticipate everything thats going to be going on two years out I guess.

GorillaWarfare wrote:
I like power swords, axes, and maces. I think I would miss those.

My favourite era was the 3rd/4th. My favourite codex was Eye of Terror, and I was really into the scratch building projects and painting tips. Back then, a codex wasn't just an army list, but a manual (although very brief) of how to participate in the hobby. Though I suppose you can argue that with the internet, those hobby sections aren't really needed anymore.

Oh, and rules wise, abstract terrain and defensive weapons (that was 4th edition, right?). I thought abstract terrain was the best. It made a fight on a jungle themed table feel like a fight in a jungle! (remember codex catachans?)

Actually those really helped me want to start a heresy era army. Infact it really made you want to inspire to do more. You didn't just see bland space marine, you saw conversions, you saw interesting ideas being executed.

I mean I still remember the back of the 4th edition space marine codex, and the third edition.

On the price and inflation issue:

Inflation in the US has gone up ~30% in the last ten years. In the same time period the price of a plastic imperial guardsman has gone up 300%.

I started Tyranids in 3rd and the customization available in that codex was amazing. You could add or remove stats, give almost anything wings or fleet or rending claws (the original rending) or whatever. You could customize the entire army to fit your play-style. I spent hours creating and naming new units that I would then 'spawn' from the 'spawning pool', hehe. The new codexes have added some of those various customized units to their own entry (flying warriors and ripper swarms for example) but it's just not the same as inventing your own and scratch building them.

Zimko wrote:
I started Tyranids in 3rd and the customization available in that codex was amazing. You could add or remove stats, give almost anything wings or fleet or rending claws (the original rending) or whatever.

Yeah and it was terrible. You'd end up with armies with the minimum possible species count to ensure maximum amount of Rending Claw mutated Gaunts. Sure, a mutable Tyranid Codex was a good idea, but the execution was bad. It was the same problem the latter 3.5 Chaos, Guard and 4th Ed Marines would suffer from, the illusion of penalties. By removing things you were never going to take anyway (be they Gargoyles, Tyrant Guard, two Chaos Fast Attack slots, Sanctioned Psykers and Storm Troopers or Allies for Marines), you ended up losing nothing and gaining exactly what you wanted for no penalty.

The following 'Nid Codex decided to "fix" this issue by making every army wither 8 MCs + some mandatory troops OR Stealer Shock, and there wouldn't be another obviously cynical attempt to base a book around a single miniature kit (plastic Carnifex) until the Knight Codex came about. Then Cruddace decided to throw his hat into the ring, creating a horrid 5th Ed book, and then he screwed up again in 6th making what was already a bad Codex into a terrible one.

There hasn't been a good Tyranid Codex since 2nd Ed.

Yea, my buddy made 12" movement 24" charge hormagaunts with like 4 attacks each. Which was a little crazy.

I loved my Guard doctrines, it was a bit more than just priests and storm troopers that you gave up. And most of the doctrines weren't worth the cost, but it was fun to experiment. It'd be cool to expand the veteran's doctrines idea to other units like conscripts (penal legion!), rough riders, special and heavy weapons teams.

 TheSilo wrote:
I loved my Guard doctrines

As did I.

 TheSilo wrote:
... it was a bit more than just priests and storm troopers that you gave up.

It wasn't much more than that. It was Priests (which nobody took), Enginseers (which nobody took), Sanctioned Psykers (which nobody took), Storm Trooper squads (which nobody took), Ratlings (which nobody took), Ogryn (which nobody took), Special Weapon Squads (which most people didn't take), Conscripts (easy to get back), Rough Riders (which were good, and had a specific use, but still, not many people took them), Heavy Weapon platoons (which nobody took).

You weren't really giving up anything. For the most part you were losing things you never intended to take in the first place, and if there was the odd unit that you liked (of the ones in that list, only SWS, Conscripts and Rough Riders rate a mention) then you just spent a doctrine point and got them back. And by "giving up" all these units you weren't going to take anyway, you gained a whole lot more, sometimes for free.

 TheSilo wrote:
And most of the doctrines weren't worth the cost, but it was fun to experiment. It'd be cool to expand the veteran's doctrines idea to other units like conscripts (penal legion!), rough riders, special and heavy weapons teams.

Damn near all of them were useless.

Drop Troops: Golden, and free. Always take.
Grenadiers: Why? Veterans are better. Storm Troopers taken as Troops are still Storm Troopers, only these couldn't Deep Strike or Infiltrate, so what's the point?
Mechanised: In a very specific type of army, you'd take this.
Die-Hards: Who'd take this? What purpose did it serve. When are Guard outnumbered in HTH anyway? And in HTH you lose. Why spend points to be better at something you suck at to begin with. You should be spending points on enhancing your strengths, not trying to plug gaps in your weaknesses.
Iron Discipline: Mandatory. It was 15-25 points in your whole army and bolstered a strength (leadership from Command Squads).
Independent Commissars: Who took Commissars?
Close Order Drill: Near-mandatory. It was free, and make your guys I4. Did I mention it was free? What's not to love?
Hardened Fighters: Equal place for the worst Doctrine in the book.
Jungle Fighters: What's the point? How much Jungle/Forest do you require before this becomes useful? 6+ save? Infiltrate but only into woods/jungle? Why take it when...
Light Infantry: ... was always a better. Infiltrate into anything. Don't have to give up Lascannons. Keep your 5+ saves. Same 10 points a squad.
Sharpshooters: Ok if you've got spare points. Makes units BS3.5.
Xeno-Fighters: As I said, why pay points to plug weaknesses when you could be spending them to enhance strengths?
Veterans: Near-mandatory. Allowed you to take 3 squads of Vets, who were better than Storm Troopers in every way.
Chem-Inhalers: Unnecessary. Guard leadership was already rock solid and Iron Discipline was cheaper and more useful.
Cameleoline: Good in specific circumstances, but if you ever found yourself spending more on Cameleoline than a full squad of Guardsmen, the extra squad of Guardsmen was usually the best bet.
Carapace Armour: +20 points per unit?
Cyber-Enhancements: Equal first for the worst Doctrine in the book.
Warrior Weapons: Plugging weaknesses/enhancing strengths, etc.

Most of the Doctrines were junk. Close Order Drill and Iron Discipline were mandatory (2 Doctrine Points), you pretty much always took Veterans (3 Doctrine Points), and the last two were whatever you needed, Drop Troops and Light Infantry, or Sharp Shooters and Heavy Weapon Platoons, Rough Riders and Mechanised, etc.

So it sounds like we're only remembering the good about 3rd since it seems codexes suffered the same imbalances as they do now. The main difference being that 3rd was easier to learn.

Zimko wrote:
The main difference being that 3rd was easier to learn.

Try explaining Sweeping Advance fire to people before you say that.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Zimko wrote:
The main difference being that 3rd was easier to learn.

Try explaining Sweeping Advance fire to people before you say that.

After finishing a combat you can move towards the nearest enemy, if the enemy is too close you can destroy the entire unit.

Not too hard to remember.

And it was a bad rule that allowed a Gretchin to chase down a unit of Chaos Terminators if the dice went against you.

I'm glad the TAR removed it.

Sure it was a bad rule but it was easy to learn. I don't have statistics to back it up but I think 3rd edition saw the largest number of new players, mostly young players, join the hobby because it was simple. It wasn't balanced at all and I don't think 40k will ever be balanced.

Zimko wrote:
Sure it was a bad rule but it was easy to learn. I don't have statistics to back it up but I think 3rd edition saw the largest number of new players, mostly young players, join the hobby because it was simple.

I think so too, not just for all the codexes they released, but what they released. We had these for 2nd edition:

Codex: Ultramarines
Codex: Angels of Death
Codex: Space Wolves
Codex: Sisters of Battle
Codex: Imperial Guard
Codex: Chaos
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Orks
Codex: Tyranids
Codex: Assassins

3rd Edition had:

Codex: Space Marines
Codex: Blood Angels
Codex: Dark Angels
Codex: Space Wolves
Codex: Chaos Space Marines (2 versions)
Codex: Imperial Guard (2 versions?)
Codex: Catachans
Codex: Assassins
Codex: Orks
Codex: Tyranids
Codex: Eldar
Codex: Craftworld Eldar
Codex: Dark Eldar (2 versions)
Codex: Witch Hunters
Codex: Daemonhunters
Codex: Tau
Codex: Necrons

Thats quite a leap, and more important to me, they created whole new races/armies: Dark Eldar, Tau, Necrons, Daemon Hunters, and Witch Hunters. We havent seen that kind of expansion within a single edition since and I doubt we ever will.

I know not all of these have survived the test of time, but nevertheless they did them. And I am not sure the release schedule was as aggressive as it is now, so they actually took longer to develop them maybe?

I am beginning to wonder if GW didnt notice a slip in sales with 6th, and its the main reason what brought 7th. I know everyone was talking about a cash grab, but I am thinking if there was a lot of excitement and money being spent on 6th, we wouldnt have had 7th so soon. It seems 3rd was successful enough to take the time in being more creative on developing new races and armies, as opposed to just getting people interested in existing armies.

This thread....


The first time on Dakka I have had anything positive to say. Before this its all been about the bitching (7th makes me soooo mad on soooo many levels). So nice to see that the majority of the posters here thought as I do that 3rd and 4th were the best rules GW has offered for 40k. *wipes away tear*

4th was the best. Abstract terrain rules made the game tactical and the scenery on the table mean something. I remember when I first read about true line of sight in one of Jervis Johnsons White Dwarf articles. I thought to myself, "Wut my guys can't take cover?" Apparently everyone in the 41st millennium walks around live battlefields upright. There is no prone position in the 41st millennium.

After it became apparent that 5th was going to be a much much much (yay more random is fun!! NOT) less tactical game than 4th I stopped playing as much as I had in the past. 6th was even worse. Then 7th, the abortion edition.

However, if 7th is so god awful it gets everyone to go back to playing 4th!!!! Well hallelujah!!

I'd really like to meet Jervis Johnson. I'd grab ahold of him, shake him while yelling, "You can play a well designed game casually but you can't play a poorly designed game competitively you *&^$%&% &@#$!!"

Ah 4th edition, those were the days

I started with the 3rd like most people when Warhammer sort of peaked in the minds of Kids here in Ireland.

It was even on the "Late Late toy show" at Christmas in 98. (A long-running special show on one of the oldest chat shows in the world)

My primary school even had a "warhammer club" after school on Thursdays.

As I fondly remember it most of the gameplay rules were easy enough to follow and you just picked up the dice and rolled. Far less use of charts or the books.

And all that wonderful artwork and 'Eavy metal help.


I played and collected on and off till 2001 and still played some mix of 3rd with close friends. Even making up our own rules and scenarios to just pick up the dice and place the models.

When I took 6th edition lessons from my FLGS earlier this year, even in my mid-twenties now, I actually struggled following all the phases, the tables of this against that to roll off, and weapons having to be looked up.... I will learn more when I've time, but it's so much bigger. Even worse was the "scorn" and hesitation from GW staff that I didn't have the SM codex yet in order to look up all those little bits of info just to score a hit/kill/save.

I guess I was more deferential to other players, and accepted a level of fairness in how rolls of the dice went back then. It was a bit quicker, it felt fun. And from what I remember a hell of a lot of kids in Ireland played back then. Even friends in secondary school fondly remembered it's peak of popularity, like Pokémon cards. Some even still have some models gathering dust.

It's now seen as far to expensive, or a lot more geeky then it had been for the kids at the time. But I've returned, and am willing to embrace it all, but won't always be buying from GW in store.

DefiantLambdas wrote:

When I took 6th edition lessons from my FLGS earlier this year, even in my mid-twenties now, I actually struggled following all the phases, the tables of this against that to roll off, and weapons having to be looked up.... I will learn more when I've time, but it's so much bigger. Even worse was the "scorn" and hesitation from GW staff that I didn't have the SM codex yet in order to look up all those little bits of info just to score a hit/kill/save.

THANK YOU SIR. Now I know I'm not the only one. It honestly sucks. LESSONS for this game. Good god. How sad it is that I would be interested in taking them.

Had my first 4th game after godifeelold years again. It was amazing. Streamlined. And...so much faster. No checking ranges. No GODDAMN wound pools. Dear Lord. Let me repeat. No. Goddamn. Wound. Pools. Amazing.

What's also amazing: try fitting your current army list into the same points limit in 4th Building an army did not cost an arm and a leg back then.

No tons of special rules. Leveled terrain. I LOVE IT. SO. MUCH. No more GODDAMN "Wait, I can see a tiny bit of the model's helmet!" "What, no?" "JUDGE!". No more. Terrain tiers = immediately resolving any LoS conflicts.

And, last but not least, THE MONOLITH RETUUUUUURNS to the battlefield! Move away, infidels!

I'm in love with 40k again. Sniff.

Started in 3rd as well. Played at least one game a week, sometimes two, for almost two years. Loved every game I played. After 6 months I rarely cracked open my rule book or BA codex because I had the rules memorized. At those prices I could buy other codexes and have a passing knowledge of other armies.

Fast forward to 6th and I still struggled with some of the rules even though I played almost every weekend. And like heck would I drop $50 on a codex for an army I don't own. Therefore there were lots of special rules I got zinged on in competitions.

Now there's 7th..... with even more rules.

Somewhere along the way things just got silly. :(

Sigvatr, you're making 4th sound quite appealing (again)! I know 4th was when I really got a chance to play the most; I started in 3rd but only played a little. What are people's impressions of 4th as compared to 3rd?

 Accolade wrote:
Sigvatr, you're making 4th sound quite appealing (again)! I know 4th was when I really got a chance to play the most; I started in 3rd but only played a little. What are people's impressions of 4th as compared to 3rd?

Eldar Falcon-Skimmer spam, Tau Fish of Fury Skimmer Spam...

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
Sigvatr, you're making 4th sound quite appealing (again)! I know 4th was when I really got a chance to play the most; I started in 3rd but only played a little. What are people's impressions of 4th as compared to 3rd?

Eldar Falcon-Skimmer spam, Tau Fish of Fury Skimmer Spam...

But that is a problem with the codexs and more specifically certain individual pieces of wargear. Not the rule set.

I had very few problems with 4th edition rules. I felt it was the most tactical of all the rules and allowed one to actually stretch their generalship muscles rather than army list writing muscles.

I still have my 3rd ed assassins codex, man assassins were badass back then.

 Accolade wrote:
Sigvatr, you're making 4th sound quite appealing (again)! I know 4th was when I really got a chance to play the most; I started in 3rd but only played a little. What are people's impressions of 4th as compared to 3rd?

It's Windows 98 compared to 95, or Windows 7 compared to Vista. They tried a new thing with the predecessor, got a lot right overall but with a few issues (maybe for more than a "few" with Vista). The next release is a tidied up and clarified version of the first. 4th honestly feels like the natural evolution of 3rd where they've learnt what didn't work so well and so things have been improved.

Since then it's felt like change for the sake of change and just piling extra bloat on top. To take the Windows analogy, the Kernal (the core ruleset) is struggling to keep up with all the new bloated changes, runs far too slowly and crashes constantly. They would be better off scrapping the core Kernal and starting over from scratch like they did with XP, with a new Kernal that's designed from scratch to carry out the features that they intend.

The main disadvantage of the older codices, their imbalance impact on the well-founded rules, can be neglected now as no WAAC player will be hopping back to 4th again

I started out at the end of 3rd, and soon came 4th which basically was 3.5 - but instead of the transition from 6th to 7th, it got better, not worse.

It's just that coming back from 7th, with its plethora of special rules and clunky rules system (mixed armor saves, wound pools, true LoS) feels so refreshing. It feels like a genuine rules system that was made for playing. It feels again like someone *thought* before writing the rules down.

As a newbie, returning to Warhammer 40k after playing Warhammer Fantasy 25 odd years ago, I can tell you that the rules today are overwhelming. I'm on my second read through of the 7th cover to cover, wondering why oh why did they make the game so complex. Just the rules around different types of flying/giant creatures and vehicles is complex, but often overruled by special abilities.

My first game against an Eldar player was basically just trusting him, as even the rules I remembered were changed by special rule after special rule from his codex.

Maybe it will sink in after playing more games, but maybe I'm just too old for this game now

Try getting into Flames of War then

Guys! This thread was started in order to talk about 3rd edition! Not 4th!

KEEP IT ON TOPIC OR I AM CONTACTING THE MODS AND THEN MOVING THIS CONVO TO WARSEER WHERE THEY WONT LET THINGS GET HIGHJACKED LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Just kidding. I actually had the 4th edition set, mainly because I wanted that crashed ship. But something about that set just didnt inspire me. Maybe it was the Tyranids who I am not a big fan of I dont know. But buying it and the Battle Rages On were the last thing I did with 4th. Never painted a model or played, and completely skipped over 5th. The irony is that I wish GW would do those kinds of scenerio booklets for all their editions. I really thought the Battle Rages On was a great idea, but it wasnt sold in the US I believe, and I had to buy it from GW UK and have it shipped to the US.

I eventually got rid of it too. Now... I feel like a fool. :(

DO NOT GET RID OF YOUR PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF 40K PEOPLE!

That was the last set where we got terrain too. The 3rd edition really didnt come with much, but I bought multiple sets, so I had quite a lot of those buildings which I think are some of the best terrain GW's made. And while I like the shuttle bits, most arent high enough to block line of site, so they are just for decoration really. I still have it too. Its the one thing I didnt get rid of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Try getting into Flames of War then

I've never played Flames of War, but I am a huge WWII history buff, or at least used to be until I read just about everything on it, and the one thing I love about FOW is the variety of armored vehicles they've made. I love the early years of tanks, and can't believe I was seeing the types of units they produced. I thought about buying some just to build, but in all honesty, the people turn me off. They are kind of cartoonish.

3rd & 4th were bpth good and both a damn site better than 6th and 7th.

Imo, the best with a few caveats was 5th. The caveats being the following:

A)If 5th had 4th ed wound allocation

B) If Fearless close combat wounds were removed.

C) If cover saves were dropped down from the edition average of 4+ - 2+ to 5+-3+ average.

D)If GW didn't release codices designed to break the game (Newcrons).
If GW didn't create Codex disparities by reducing the cost of some factions transports by half while leaving others with over costed junk.
_________________________________________________________________


I see many in this thread complaining about Tlos. I think that you guys are forgetting the problem with the abstract rules and everything being area terrain.
In 3rd and 4th you had to go through and explicitly note that a solid wall or structure blocked line of sight.

Then even after noting such at the beginning of the game your opponent would conveniently forget such and would try to flamer your unit though a solid wall while citing the area terrain rules.

5th Tlos had far fewer arguments and out right cheating than the old abstracted terrain levels.

The real problem with 5th ed's tlos is that the playets relied on GW to provide the terrain(none of which blocked los) instead of making los blocking terrain.
Heck, try compromising. Run 5th ed Tlos but have the 4th ed rule that states area terrain over x inches blocks los ...presto, problem solved.

ColOfTheDead wrote:

As a newbie, returning to Warhammer 40k after playing Warhammer Fantasy 25 odd years ago, I can tell you that the rules today are overwhelming. I'm on my second read through of the 7th cover to cover, wondering why oh why did they make the game so complex. Just the rules around different types of flying/giant creatures and vehicles is complex, but often overruled by special abilities.

My first game against an Eldar player was basically just trusting him, as even the rules I remembered were changed by special rule after special rule from his codex.

Maybe it will sink in after playing more games, but maybe I'm just too old for this game now

Yea, especially since they could easily narrow down the unit types, and back when I started we always assumed that skimmers were the "fliers" of 40k.

Jet pack, jump pack, bike, beast, jet bike, and cavalry should all just be fast infantry...airborne or grounded.

Fliers should just be old school fast skimmers. Even RTS games have a hard time with incorporating airplanes into their games, and usually favor helicopters, which 40k should do too.

Flying monstrous creatures should just be airborne fast infantry. That's fast enough, having them swooping is ridiculous and overly complicated.

KTG17 wrote:
KEEP IT ON TOPIC OR I AM CONTACTING THE MODS AND THEN MOVING THIS CONVO TO WARSEER WHERE THEY WONT LET THINGS GET HIGHJACKED LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

By all means, go to Warseer.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
KEEP IT ON TOPIC OR I AM CONTACTING THE MODS AND THEN MOVING THIS CONVO TO WARSEER WHERE THEY WONT LET THINGS GET HIGHJACKED LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

By all means, go to Warseer.

I think it might have been sarcastic

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
KEEP IT ON TOPIC OR I AM CONTACTING THE MODS AND THEN MOVING THIS CONVO TO WARSEER WHERE THEY WONT LET THINGS GET HIGHJACKED LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

By all means, go to Warseer.

Dude, wtf. Selective reading? Or just trying to be a dick? I like how you leave out the part where I said I was kidding. I guess you dont have enough going on in your life that you have to spend it trolling. Thats fine. Lots of trolls out there and they all share the same traits.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:

I think it might have been sarcastic

Let him think it was serious. He needs it.

4th essential is 3rd with a few adjustments, so I guess it's fine.

 Sigvatr wrote:
4th essential is 3rd with a few adjustments, so I guess it's fine.

Well, it traded the completely overpowered transport and assault rules for incredibly underpowered transports. it's an improvement in a lot of ways, and the addition of USRs smplificed some of the codices, but while 4th edition had a lot of good, there was a double handful ot WTF moments in that edition.

 Polonius wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
4th essential is 3rd with a few adjustments, so I guess it's fine.

Well, it traded the completely overpowered transport and assault rules for incredibly underpowered transports. it's an improvement in a lot of ways, and the addition of USRs smplificed some of the codices, but while 4th edition had a lot of good, there was a double handful ot WTF moments in that edition.

.

I dunno about the transports. I played trukker speed freaks in 4th and didn't have too much of a problem with transports - you just had to protect them (rightly so) while they were en-route. That wasn't difficult with the amount of LoS blocking terrain in that edition.

I don't remember transport being that fragile - but keep in mind my experience lies many years back in the past and since I play Necrons, I don't have any transports anyway. I'm running down a few points - if you want to add or elaborate on them, I'd appreciate it

a) Dangerous terrain becoming twice as dangerous when going faster than 6''.

a.2) On the other hand, area terrain blocks LoS after 6'', so you can actually "hide "behind" any area terrain - of which there is a lot.

b) Dedicated Transports are limited to the unit they came with

c) AP 1 is very rare and limited to Melta weaponry

d) AP - is can only cause glancing hits

e) Vehicle damage table is DEADLY. 50% chance to destroy a vehicle with a penetrating hit is rough.

f) Emergency Disembarkation can be quite deadly for passengers

I remember it being an all-or-nothing approach - keeping your transports behind cover was absolutely mandatory else you got a high chance to see it going up in flames.

What really gimped transports was entanglement. BAsically, when a tranport was wrecked, the squad inside couldn't move, shoot, or assault next turn. Not pin test, just an immediate loss of turn.

Transports also started in reserves in 1/3 of the games, due to Escalation.

I always liked the limit on wargear that was present and am sad to see it go away.

I guess since we're discussing rules, I really super like Hull Points , but wish they'd completely streamline ALL o the vehicle rules.

Hollismason wrote:
I always liked the limit on wargear

Codex: Necrons

I love it. It's super limited but that big limitation fits perfectly to the fluff and the lore behind it. It's an extremely well-thought out codex. Another example is the Monolith. It's extremely strong, but its concept is perfectly thought-out: it's the only vehicle in the army and for this fact alone automatically becomes an iconic center-piece of any Necron army. This "center-piece" function is further reinforced by the teleportation ability that was mainly used to...safe your entire army's center-piece, your troops.

Pariahs. An army whose only weakness is the warp itself came up with a new machine that aims to counter their main threat: connections to the Warp. Again: perfectly fitting to the fluff.

The TruCron codex is a perfect example for how a codex has to be written. Clear. Stream-lined. Rules go hand-in-hand with the fluff. It's a masterpiece.

If I could, I would shove it down Matt Ward's throat. Page. By. Page.

As for flyers, they're one of the worst things that's been added to the game. Just like super-heavies, they should be an optional part, a la Apocalypse. But, that doesn't sell models, so cram it into 40K.

The funny thing is this: Flyers as they were introduced in the Vehicle Design Rules were generally seen by most of the players as a bad and sometimes downright overpowered addition to 40K as it portrayed things on the tabletop. Except, nowadays, a good deal of the flyer rules that are part of the game are pretty similar to those early rules.

Sometimes I really think that what was more important than the rules of 3/4th editions and how they played was the GW timeframe they existed in. I think that the late 90's and early 2000's was a very healthy and fun time for everything GW-related. Specialist games? All the cool summer campaigns (despite it being inevitable that the forces of disorder would always "lose"). Things like GW posting PDF templates/articles on their actual site for building our own stuff, etc.

All that helped me gloss over any parts of those editions that I didn't like, because they did so much as emphasizing all the awesome stuff I liked.

 Sigvatr wrote:
4th essential is 3rd with a few adjustments, so I guess it's fine.

You would think so, but no. 4th edition was a mess. It was the edition that saw me give away all of my terrain and put my miniatues into storage.

The hybrid LOS rules (size categories for area terrain and close combats, true LOS for everything else) were widely misunderstood and never clarified by GW. Transports because nigh-on unusable. And the standard of the codexes in general was sub-par, with FAQ support being somewhat variable.

It did have its high points (the Chapter Traits system in the 4th ed Marine books makes it my favourite Marine codex to date) but overall was tedious and a mass of rules issues.


3rd ed wasn't a great deal better where the actual writing was concerned (I remember posting (pre-internet days) a 10 page letter of rules queries to GW a year or so into 3rd ed... and that was the second letter) but it played much better than 4th, IMO.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

As for flyers, they're one of the worst things that's been added to the game. Just like super-heavies, they should be an optional part, a la Apocalypse. But, that doesn't sell models, so cram it into 40K.

Sometimes I really think that what was more important than the rules of 3/4th editions and how they played was the GW timeframe they existed in. I think that the late 90's and early 2000's was a very healthy and fun time for everything GW-related. Specialist games? All the cool summer campaigns (despite it being inevitable that the forces of disorder would always "lose"). Things like GW posting PDF templates/articles on their actual site for building our own stuff, etc.

All that helped me gloss over any parts of those editions that I didn't like, because they did so much as emphasizing all the awesome stuff I liked.

Exalted and QFT. I don't doubt 3rd and 4th had their share of issues, but I'd say that part of why I don't remember them as well is that in addition to the (IMO) simpler rules and a game that knew what it wanted to be, the overall positive enviornment compensated for most shortcomings as AegosGrimm said. Needed bitz?No problem. Mail order. Rules questions? No problem. Official forums. Can't afford exotic terrain? No problem. Many a WD had terrain crafting instructions. Lets not forget this was the time when there were still interactive summer campaigns, tourneys with prize ssupport and support for local game shops (even if minimal). Fact of the matter was that GW had a report with the customer and that itself is/was huge. From what I recall my experiences with GW staff and retailers/support was almost entirely positive. I came back mid 6th after going off to uni mid 4th and to say the least I was really bummed at what a gluttonous pig the GW corperation had become as most of the good I was hoping to come back to was gone in favor of cutthroat business and there is NO interaction between GW and the players.

I still play, and I'm liking 7th much more than 6th, but ill never forget how great pre 05 GW was and how the soul of the company has straight up rotted since.

So much truth. GW stores were actual hobby centers where you *felt* invited to come in and play, they offered terrain design workshops etc. They actually *cared* for their customers. Modern GW has turned 180° and openly hates (!) their customers and makes fun of them.

Storm of Chaos was awesome! Although they retconned it afterwards.

White Dwarf was actually worth reading and not a pile of advertisement garbage.

Spending money was great, because you felt actively supporting a company that gave a lot in return. Nowadays GW is an utter piece of grotpoo.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So much truth. GW stores were actual hobby centers where you *felt* invited to come in and play, they offered terrain design workshops etc. They actually *cared* for their customers. Modern GW has turned 180° and openly hates (!) their customers and makes fun of them.

Openly hate? That's a little strong. Views as a necessary evil perhaps.

Referring to the amazing court records with the Chapterhouse case. Should be mandatory reads for every GW white knight.

What is Chapterhouse?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355433.page

 Sigvatr wrote:
So much truth. GW stores were actual hobby centers where you *felt* invited to come in and play, they offered terrain design workshops etc. They actually *cared* for their customers. Modern GW has turned 180° and openly hates (!) their customers and makes fun of them.

Storm of Chaos was awesome! Although they retconned it afterwards.

White Dwarf was actually worth reading and not a pile of advertisement garbage.

Spending money was great, because you felt actively supporting a company that gave a lot in return. Nowadays GW is an utter piece of grotpoo.

Oh man, White Dwarf used to be so awesome. Pages of fluff, full detail bat reps with tactical breakdowns, modeling tips, experimental rules, it gave the hobby motion. That week everyone would hit the table with experimental rules for smoke grenades, or Tanith regiments, new Dark Eldar vehicle upgrades, etc.

As for flyers, they were better as fast skimmers (helicopters) or abstractions (call in a strike a la master of ordnance).

Or better yet when DW had half a dozen games going on and you could read up on Warhammer Quest, Necromunda, 40k, Fantasy, and Epic all in the same mag.

A lot of variety in the 'Eavy Metal pics too.

Those were the days.

 AegisGrimm wrote:


Sometimes I really think that what was more important than the rules of 3/4th editions and how they played was the GW timeframe they existed in. I think that the late 90's and early 2000's was a very healthy and fun time for everything GW-related. Specialist games? All the cool summer campaigns (despite it being inevitable that the forces of disorder would always "lose"). Things like GW posting PDF templates/articles on their actual site for building our own stuff, etc.

All that helped me gloss over any parts of those editions that I didn't like, because they did so much as emphasizing all the awesome stuff I liked.

This exactly! I am pleased to see that so many also agree with AegisGrimm.

The rules were never great, but back then things were more positive and enjoyable for the above mentioned reasons. Now in the present, we have a rule set that is just as flawed, but is twice as wordy (so I guess you could say twice as bad?). GW is just interested in being a miniature company, not a hobby company. There is nothing wrong with that, but its unfortunate. The miniature hobby in general is still going strong in so many other ways though!

3rd edition was great before the codex's came out.

Having everyone start with the same lists was fine but I am actually a fan of USR - just don't give them to everyone.

3 main things I don't like: 40k has moved towards shooting for 4 straight editions, introduction of fliers and convoluted flying rules and has never completed an edition and updated all armies at the same time.