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.

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.