Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.