I'm looking to try out third edition 40k with my roommate since most of those old books are dirt cheap nowadays but I do have a few questions if anyone can help me out.

Besides the BRB and codices for my orkz and his chaos boys what other supplements would you guys recommend?

There's 3 chapter approved books (2001/03/04), and according to 40k lexicanum all 3 contain updates for the ork codex - but are they just the same update reprinted 3 times? or 3 successive updates that build on eachother?

Are there any FAQs or Dev commentary outside of the chapter approved books? I've done a cursory google and not been able to find any so far.

Any other tips would be appreciated as we've never experienced any other edition besides 8th.

(apologies if this is in the wrong subforum but it didn't seem to fit anywhere else.)

I don't think you actually need the CA books. CA was my most active edition and I never even knew CA was a thing.

That said, you guys should probably come to the table "on the same terms" for third edition. The 3.5 chaos book was probably the most powerful codex ever made for someone who REALLY wants to go ham on winning. Also there's not a lot of role flexibility in 3rd, so a blob of 30 strong ork boys cannot harm a tank beyond their knob. So trying to make sure you're on the same page about what kind of armies you're bringing is going to greatly improve the experience.

Chapter Approved in 3rd edition was a collection of the rules published in White Dwarf. The list on Lexicanium shows that this isn't comprehensive though as I have an old White Dwarfs with army lists for Blood Pact, Salamanders, Kroot etc that aren't listed.

3rd edition was a bit of a wild west, loads of random army lists and trial rules got published and the internet wasn't a big thing back then. So anyone could turn up with a wierd unit and photocopied page of rules you'd never heard of before!
That makes it a really fun edition to play, but both you and your opponent need to approach the game in the same spirit to make the best of it.

As for extra stuff, the BRB has rules for every army in so you don't 'need' anything else. However if your playing Orks then Codex:Armageddon is a nice one to pic up for the Kult of Speed army.

To be honest 3rd edition was the golden era of the game imo (the 2nd edition chaps will tell you different!). So obviously I'm going to tell you that any books you pick up from that period are going to be fantastic!

Whatever Chapter Approved had the "Trial Assault Rules" in it. Get that.

Agreed with Kroem, 3rd ed was great. I'd recommend getting the trial assault rules from ca 2004 as they help cut down on some of the ridiculousness that cc can turn into. You don't need the book, as pdfs shouldn't be hard to find. And don't let your buddy play Iron Warriors.

I don't suppose there exists a pdf of the 3rd edition book anywhere?

I loaned my copy to someone when 4th hit and never got it back.

you might find some helpful links in the 40k general on /tg/

Careful of older PDFs The early ones the covers fall off.

Yeah you want the CA's for the 3.5 updates basically.

 vipoid wrote:
I don't suppose there exists a pdf of the 3rd edition book anywhere?

I loaned my copy to someone when 4th hit and never got it back.

The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF. Rogue Trader Vehicle Manual? It's out there. Slaves to Darkness? Found a PDF of it over a decade ago while I was still in grad school. 2E Wargear book? The Codex Imperialis? 2E and 3E White Dwarf rules for Necrons (before they got codex books)? Not a problem, there's PDF's floating around.

But the core 3E rulebook? Nope.

I keep getting tempted to just make my own

CptMendoza wrote:
I'm looking to try out third edition 40k with my roommate since most of those old books are dirt cheap nowadays but I do have a few questions if anyone can help me out.

Besides the BRB and codices for my orkz and his chaos boys what other supplements would you guys recommend?

There's 3 chapter approved books (2001/03/04), and according to 40k lexicanum all 3 contain updates for the ork codex - but are they just the same update reprinted 3 times? or 3 successive updates that build on eachother?

Are there any FAQs or Dev commentary outside of the chapter approved books? I've done a cursory google and not been able to find any so far.

Any other tips would be appreciated as we've never experienced any other edition besides 8th.

(apologies if this is in the wrong subforum but it didn't seem to fit anywhere else.)

You don't *need* any of the CA's, but the 2003 book with the Trial Assault/Transport Rules is probably a good one to pick up (they weren't "mandatory" but were used in most events for the second half of 4E, and became standard for 4E). Aside from that, unless you want Legion/Chapter special rules before they got rolled into the 3.5E CSM and 4E SM books, the rest is going to be pretty niche, stuff like Kroot mercenaries, IG Armored Companies, and a lot of the stuff in the CA books just got rolled into codex updates in 3.5E books or early 4E.

Yep, the "trial assault rules" basically made 3rd edition into "Version 3.5" etc.

So you had 3rd...3.5...and then 4th if that makes sense. It was a pretty large fundamental change.

PS: If you can find the book or a PDF...I believe 3rd did have all of the "basic" army rules in the main rulebook, since they ditched the revision of 2nd edition and swapped over to making 3rd edition in a short time span. It negated all of the 2nd edition books and materials completely (including the Sisters of Battle codex which was about six months old?).

So technically I think you could play a game with just the main book and do fine for a start.

I liked 3rd best stripped down. My first game after a few years off after playing 2nd for years and reading RT was with a playtester for GW and he chaos warrior rhino rushed me... then I had a couple simpler games with normal people and took more time away until 4th. 2nd remains my favorite but stripped down 3rd or 4th is probably what 8th should gave been. In the change ftom 7th to 8th I dreamed of an amalgam of 2nd rpg and detail customizability with streamlined 4th. We got a card game instead...

I prefer 5th to 3rd but i have fond memories of many of the good codexes form 3rd-chaos 3.5, dark angels mini-dex. IG armored company lists via CA

The glaring negative i have with 3rd is "guess range weapons" for templates. as in you guess wrong you don't even get to fire it. it was better when 4th instituted the 2d6 + scatter for template weapons (-for BS if you have LOS).

4th had it's own problem with overpowering eldar and tau skimmers.


I hope you enjoy your 3rd ed foray. it is quite a different game than 8th especially with the area terrain rules that could hide things based on size category. .

The codex armageddon can easaly be found online. It has some cool list for ork speed freeks.

I started with 4th ed and i have the fondest memories of it. I played mostly footslogging IG and the IG codex back then was just glorious. Lots of customisation

If i could just play this edition back...

The last breaths of 4th were somewhat bad though. Chaos codex that lost all of the options but gave lash of submission instead so everyone was running Slaanesh DPs. Orks codex also overbuffed the army in that period of time.

I wasnt a fan of 5th. It absolutely killed my footslogging IG and forced to buy lots of tanks which i just didnt like as playstyle. Introduced many absurd rules like wound allocation that made things like Orks nob bikers practically unkillable. So... as i said i wasnt a fan.

4th on the other hand in its middle period of time before the late Chaos and Orks codexes was just very nice. It was just a polished 3rd edition.

If i had to change something in it i would maybe buff vehicles a little but without overbuffing them like 5th did.

Glumy wrote:
4th on the other hand in its middle period of time before the late Chaos and Orks codexes was just very nice. It was just a polished 3rd edition.

It was also an era of first turn charging blood angels, near enough indestructible eldar skimmers, and literally indestructible chaos lords among other things.

It was interesting to see GW changing speeds a few times throughout the edition and 3rd, trying to figure out what the game was supposed to be or where it was going seemingly without any unified plan.

3rd evolved far more than any edition since. It was an era where GW wasn’t just tweaking point costs in CA, but replacing whole swaths of the rules. And adding new ones in WD. Codex creep/escalation was also rampant and out of control.

I loved it, and consider it my favorite edition. But a chunk of that is rose colored classes and the nostalgia. Another is focusing on the first half. At the end it was a hot mess that needed to be put down.

But if you are going retro-hammer, you are in the position to sit with your friends and cherry pick what you want to include. And issue your own FAQs to tone down some of the broken stuff.

Good luck.

A.T. wrote:

Glumy wrote:
4th on the other hand in its middle period of time before the late Chaos and Orks codexes was just very nice. It was just a polished 3rd edition.

It was also an era of first turn charging blood angels, near enough indestructible eldar skimmers, and literally indestructible chaos lords among other things.

It was interesting to see GW changing speeds a few times throughout the edition and 3rd, trying to figure out what the game was supposed to be or where it was going seemingly without any unified plan.

Haha I remember that, where half the points of a Chaos army would be in their lord with loads of deamonic gifts and weapons!

 Kroem wrote:
Haha I remember that, where half the points of a Chaos army would be in their lord with loads of deamonic gifts and weapons!

And the other half would be in daemonettes being summoned directly into close combat...

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF. Rogue Trader Vehicle Manual? It's out there. Slaves to Darkness? Found a PDF of it over a decade ago while I was still in grad school. 2E Wargear book? The Codex Imperialis? 2E and 3E White Dwarf rules for Necrons (before they got codex books)? Not a problem, there's PDF's floating around.

But the core 3E rulebook? Nope.

I keep getting tempted to just make my own

Yeah, that's been my experience, too.

It's a shame as I liked reading back and remembering not just the core rules but also the old army rules for each of the factions.

A.T. wrote:
It was interesting to see GW changing speeds a few times throughout the edition and 3rd, trying to figure out what the game was supposed to be or where it was going seemingly without any unified plan.

The more things change the more they stay same

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF.

It is out there, though the only one i've seen recently was lacking the army rules section. Hidden in a directory listing amongst other seeming lost files as 3e errata and faq.

Slightly different formatting to the old FAQs - i.e. "Errata - Ork Q&A v1.0.pdf" on the subject of an army list from white dwarf answered 'Karl Renwick screwed up his army list'

A.T. wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF.

It is out there, though the only one i've seen recently was lacking the army rules section. Hidden in a directory listing amongst other seeming lost files as 3e errata and faq.

Slightly different formatting to the old FAQs - i.e. "Errata - Ork Q&A v1.0.pdf" on the subject of an army list from white dwarf answered 'Karl Renwick screwed up his army list'

I'll have to take another look somewhere then, it was weird how that seemed to be the one always missing PDF libraries.

 vipoid wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF. Rogue Trader Vehicle Manual? It's out there. Slaves to Darkness? Found a PDF of it over a decade ago while I was still in grad school. 2E Wargear book? The Codex Imperialis? 2E and 3E White Dwarf rules for Necrons (before they got codex books)? Not a problem, there's PDF's floating around.

But the core 3E rulebook? Nope.

I keep getting tempted to just make my own

Yeah, that's been my experience, too.

It's a shame as I liked reading back and remembering not just the core rules but also the old army rules for each of the factions.

I feel ya, and it's driven me bonkers having to hunt for the hardcover when trying to look stuff up

Glumy wrote:
I started with 4th ed and i have the fondest memories of it. I played mostly footslogging IG and the IG codex back then was just glorious. Lots of customisation

If i could just play this edition back...

The last breaths of 4th were somewhat bad though. Chaos codex that lost all of the options but gave lash of submission instead so everyone was running Slaanesh DPs. Orks codex also overbuffed the army in that period of time.

I wasnt a fan of 5th. It absolutely killed my footslogging IG and forced to buy lots of tanks which i just didnt like as playstyle. Introduced many absurd rules like wound allocation that made things like Orks nob bikers practically unkillable. So... as i said i wasnt a fan.

4th on the other hand in its middle period of time before the late Chaos and Orks codexes was just very nice. It was just a polished 3rd edition.

If i had to change something in it i would maybe buff vehicles a little but without overbuffing them like 5th did.

Hrm, in all fairness, IG were generally absolute competitive garbage in3E/4E, and while there was the loss of Doctrines in 5E, the infantry and upgrades got so much cheaper, coupled with Orders and coupled with the very important lack of consolidation into new combats (the primary killer of 3E/4E IG armies), that even Infantry Guard (while being sub-optimal next to mechanized lists) should have been substantially better off.

While 5E was by no means perfect (Kill Points, vehicle defensive weapon rules, wound allocation, etc), 3E/4E had plenty of its own, invinci-skimmers, non-skimmer transports being unusable and dangerous to use (oh, your transport sustained a penetrating hit, auto-disembark and pinning test!), consolidation into new combats, etc.

There are really two different third editions worth playing, and then a barren wasteland in between.

the basic BBB included rules and army lists for everything. It's wonky and the lists are limited, but it works. The armies are actually balanced-ish, and while the core rules allow for dumb stuff, the army lists are toned down enough that they dont' get too abusive.

Near the end of the 3rd, you had codexes for everybody, including new armies like Daemonhunters (grey knights plus inquisition), Tau, and Necrons. You also had Trial Vehicle Rules and Trial Assault rules, which fixed/toned down assault and transports, and opened the game up a bit.

In between though... oof.... you had ridiculous codex creep, and wildly inbalanced army lists. There was an absolute ton of content though, and you could build some great niche lists.

I'd recommend starting with bare bones 3rd edition with the BBB lists, and only add in the later codices if you have the TVR/TAR.

My vote is 4th edition. It was a refined 3rd with loads more options in the codexes. 5th edition over-toughened vehicles and was the start of inflating invuln saves and propogation of too many high AP weapons.

In fairness, 5th only "overtoughened" cheap transports that could afford to not care about most damage results and still do their job. Gun tanks were trivially easy to shut down as even a single glancing hit kept them, at a minimum, from shooting for a turn, while Melta was both cheap and plentiful (cheaper than it is typically now for most units). Nobody had issues with Land Raiders, Russ Tanks, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, Dreadnoughts, etc, it was the ubiquitous 35-50pt Rhino's that could sustain 5 out of 6 glancing or 3/6 penetrating results (with 4+ smoke cover) and still do their job without issues

 Polonius wrote:

I'd recommend starting with bare bones 3rd edition with the BBB lists, and only add in the later codices if you have the TVR/TAR.

THIS. Unless someone really wants to play Tau or Necrons, keep it to the BBB and the lists printed inside. Corehammer 3rd is the most balanced version you'll find and a really good introduction to newer players since it lacks the flashy, gamey aspects the Codexes bring in.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In fairness, 5th only "overtoughened" cheap transports that could afford to not care about most damage results and still do their job. Gun tanks were trivially easy to shut down as even a single glancing hit kept them, at a minimum, from shooting for a turn, while Melta was both cheap and plentiful (cheaper than it is typically now for most units). Nobody had issues with Land Raiders, Russ Tanks, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, Dreadnoughts, etc, it was the ubiquitous 35-50pt Rhino's that could sustain 5 out of 6 glancing or 3/6 penetrating results (with 4+ smoke cover) and still do their job without issues

Fair enough, but the way that manifested on the table was that every marine deployment zone looked like a parking lot. It looked like garbage. Couple that with forests not blocking LOS, multi-wound allocation rules, removal of lots of options from the 4th ed books and the Ward codexes, 5th gets a fat thumbs-down from me.

Fifth edition was a nice big house with an open floor plan... and shag carpeting everywhere. The thing is... that's a pretty simple fix.

Fifth edition has a few things bad about it, but some are corner csaes (wound allocation really was only a big deal for Ork nobs and GK paladins). The vehicle damage chart is likewise simple to house rule around (either by giving +1 for every subsequent roll, or by giving all rolls a blanket +1).

 Insectum7 wrote:
Fair enough, but the way that manifested on the table was that every marine deployment zone looked like a parking lot. It looked like garbage.

The cheap transports started in 4th edition, probably due to how suicidal riding in a non-skimmer vehicle was. 5e had a double dip of two different designers fixing the same problem.

50pt rhinos, 70pt heavy bolter razorbacks, and 85pt single fire point chimeras were a bit less appealing. That said the objectives rules in 5e would have still pushed players back to them to hide their troop choices...

 Polonius wrote:
Fifth edition was a nice big house with an open floor plan... and shag carpeting everywhere. The thing is... that's a pretty simple fix.

Fifth edition has a few things bad about it, but some are corner csaes (wound allocation really was only a big deal for Ork nobs and GK paladins). The vehicle damage chart is likewise simple to house rule around (either by giving +1 for every subsequent roll, or by giving all rolls a blanket +1).

Don't get me wrong, overall 5th was ok. And every edition has its oddities (that can be house-ruled away). But IMO 4th is a better foundation, and the codexes of that era are top notch. Daemonhunters book vs. Ward GK is a no brainer. The IG doctrines, custom chapter rules, Chaos 3.5, Tyranid mutations, Kroot sub-codex. Speed Freaks. A great time.

Yeah, none of these were perfect editions, and each had issues both with core rules and separately with codex design, and none ever had much meaningful errata or rules cleanup done to them with mostly only relatively light FAQ. I think everyone would have preferred some sort of hybrid of each compared to any single distinct version. For myself, I think early 4E was probably the height of the eras cool factor in terms of options offered and general story feel (armories, doctrines, legion rules, chapter traits, etc), with mid-5E broadly being the most playable for the widest array of factions and unit types (e.g. Jump Infantry weren't all almost 30pt models, transports of all kinds actually functioned, everyone's drop pods and assault cannons finally all worked the same way, etc), with core 3E being the easiest to just pick up and go with if you bought a couple squads of basic dudes of whatever and want to throw down.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Daemonhunters book vs. Ward GK is a no brainer.

It's been a while but I seem to recall that 1000pts of daemonhunters was approximately a GM with minimum retinue, three bare minimum squads of power armour, and a las/missile dreadnought.

19 infantry and a vehicle. Curiously my old 1k 3rd edition dark eldar list also had 19... dark lances.

A.T. wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Haha I remember that, where half the points of a Chaos army would be in their lord with loads of deamonic gifts and weapons!

And the other half would be in daemonettes being summoned directly into close combat...

Unless you played Night Lords. We only got to take furies, and they sucked.

A.T. wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The 3E 40k core rulebook is literally the only Games Workshop produced Warhammer 40,000 related gaming publication I have never found, seen, or heard of existing as a PDF.

It is out there, though the only one i've seen recently was lacking the army rules section. Hidden in a directory listing amongst other seeming lost files as 3e errata and faq.

Slightly different formatting to the old FAQs - i.e. "Errata - Ork Q&A v1.0.pdf" on the subject of an army list from white dwarf answered 'Karl Renwick screwed up his army list'

They exist. I downloaded a pdf of the 3rd edition rulebook complete except for the cover along with several old IA books three weeks ago. Now the URL for the site shows up as "not found".

Edit:
Sorry, my bad. No army lists. Must be the same one A.T. was talking about.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Daemonhunters book vs. Ward GK is a no brainer.

It's been a while but I seem to recall that 1000pts of daemonhunters was approximately a GM with minimum retinue, three bare minimum squads of power armour, and a las/missile dreadnought.

19 infantry and a vehicle. Curiously my old 1k 3rd edition dark eldar list also had 19... dark lances.

I dunno, but you could take Stormtroopers as Troops and you only needed two Troops in those days. Conversely, you could just ally in a single GK squad into your IG or SM army. Plenty of ways to get around their expensive Power Armor GK squads.

Even the codex itself noted that running pure grey knights was... a challenge.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I dunno, but you could take Stormtroopers as Troops and you only needed two Troops in those days. Conversely, you could just ally in a single GK squad into your IG or SM army. Plenty of ways to get around their expensive Power Armor GK squads.

Absolutely - I was an old DH player until the GK book came along and ruined it and the best way to play grey knights was to not play grey knights.

Though they (and sisters) did have the handy perk of being immune to the effects of the siren power.

They had some amazing abilities for fighting daemons though. The Grimoire of True Names I remember being amazing on your GM against Greater Daemons.

Flavor trumped game balance in the DH book in particular. But it was such rich flavor.

I'm also a guy who prefers that the GK not be a standing army that regularly deploys against non-daemons, which is what they turned into. So for me, the DH codex was fantastic. It was far more of a narrative book than a tourney book.

The 3E DH book was a spectacular piece of worldbuilding art, that entire era of codex writing with the DH/WH/CSM/IG/etc books was probably GW's peak of writing awesome atmosphere pieces.

As a gameplay supplement for a tabletop miniatures wargame however, the DH codex was really bad at its job, a great example of what happens when someone has a bunch of cool sounding ideas but doesn't really play them. GW produced these gorgeous miniatures (the metal terminators are some of my favorite GW models ever, I'm literally working on some right this moment) for an army they designed to fight against one enemy faction (out of a dozen plus) who wasn't even their own actual distinct army at the time (not until just before 5E anyway), making them wholly uncompetitive in a general gaming sense. On top of that, they gave Daemons so many bonuses to counteract the GK abilitiles, like recycling dead units right back onto the board, that games against Daemons often were even worse, while outside of GK units there wasn't really enough of an army to make much of anything. It made owning a collection of Daemonhunters as something other than a display piece rather difficult to justify for many.

Then the Ward dex came along in 5th, and while the quality of the writing dropped through the floor straight into bad internet fanfic territory, and for all its balance problems, it did make owning a collection of Grey Knights miniatures much more playable in a general "pick a faction and play games with your toy soldiers against whoever shows up on league night" sense. That slides into my earlier point about that 3.5E/early 4E era being the peak of some cool detail and worldbuilding, with later 5E being kinda the peak of general playability.

I loved the DH (and WH) book. Never played Grey Knights. Just used Inquisitors.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They had some amazing abilities for fighting daemons though.

They were, weirdly, better at fighting Eldar though. S6 weapons that ignore Invul saves.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They had some amazing abilities for fighting daemons though. The Grimoire of True Names I remember being amazing on your GM against Greater Daemons.

An HQ with a high strength I5 force weapon, protection from psychic powers, and penalties to instability tests.

Did not age well with 4e daemons. Though list tailored inquisition DH vs 4e daemons remains perhaps the closest to an 'auto win' matchup in 40k - there wasn't anything you could do if a couple of inquisitors in transports roll up on the objectives and cast sanctuary.

Though it's interesting looking back at 3e and how close the statlines of the 'monster' units were, and how relatively fragile.

5th edition over-toughened vehicles and was the start of inflating invuln saves and propogation of too many high AP weapons.

So you are totally not seeing the correlation in game design there? make vehicles harder to kill but balance it out by allowing more anti-tank weapons in the game? it was part of the strategic play, knowng which fight to fight with which units. also it only helped non-skimmers. 4th ed was the heyday of eldar/tau tank lists. that was a bit overpowered and thats coming from a tau player at the time(although i am glad 3rd ed crystal targeting matrix went away even in 4th).

What was "overtough" and superior by all measurements from 3rd -5th was monsterous creatures. some small arms could hut them but they could not be stunned, pinned, or otherwise hampered unless they were dead. and against the so called "toughened vheicles" they were can-openers. even my landraiders rarely survived being assaulted by a bloodthirster, carnifex or hive tyrant.

Fifth edition was a nice big house with an open floor plan... and shag carpeting everywhere. The thing is... that's a pretty simple fix.

Fifth edition has a few things bad about it, but some are corner cases (wound allocation really was only a big deal for Ork nobs and GK paladins). The vehicle damage chart is likewise simple to house rule around (either by giving +1 for every subsequent roll, or by giving all rolls a blanket +1).

There was actually nothing wrong with the damage chart. cumulative damage still destroyed even the biggest vehicles who effectively also only had 1 wound and could be insta killed as well.

It's good to remember in the age of 8th that back then there were alot less shots/CC attacks being fired/swung, alot less wounds to soak up said shots and a much easier game to keep track of with fixed movement/charge ranges by unit type and USRs limited to 3 pages in the BRB that applied to all factions, not stacks of special books full of stratagems for each and every faction. even faction specific special rules were limited in scope and not as extreme as now.



On "fixing things"
That's pretty much what our group did years ago as we still play core 5th. we sat down for a few hours and started with 5th as the base game and pulled the best rules from 3rd-7th that would fit well into 5th. and them codified them in a list of modified rules (PDF)

Also allowing your favorite version of the codex for your army to be playable in accordance with 5th ed rules if it is from 3rd-7th as the compatability is pretty straightforward.
As examples-i prefer to use the 3rd ed Dark angel minidex for playing ravenwing/deathwing, same with grey knights as it made them incredibly lore specific (and the fact a small force of GKs/WH codex units could join any imperial force making their stand alone viability not such an issue). at the same time i find the 5th ed IG codex(even with the lost of doctrines) and the blood angel codex to better represent the options and lore of those factions.

For other rules modifications we did things like so-

.We still use the assault to hit VS vehicle rules from 4th(minus the skimmers always glancing bit) ,
.the rules for psykers from 4th/5th (not that mess that is 6th/7th attempting to import the WHFB magic phase into the game),
.CC weapons having a flavorful AP value from 6th/7th,
.fearless USR from 3rd (auto pass LD checks save pinning),
.snap fire from 6th/7th to make moving heavy weapons and stunned/shaken vehicles be able to at least attempt to contribute something
...among other things (like i said i have a 1 page PDF list ).

I still play 3rd Ed. currently. Posted a bunch of battle reports on this site linking to classichammer.com where the batrep is written.

I echo that the Armageddon codex is a good grab to add. What I'd DEFINITELY recommend is sitting down and making a Summary page for your Orks. They were the only book to my knowledge that didn't have the summary where it listed all stat lines for models and ballistic weapon stats.


I'm curious about the whole "Unkillable skimmer" thing, though. It's not something I've experienced.

 Insectum7 wrote:
5th edition over-toughened vehicles...

Wasn't 5th Ed the advent of Hull Points? That made vehicles weaker.

Just Tony wrote:I still play 3rd Ed. currently. Posted a bunch of battle reports on this site linking to classichammer.com where the batrep is written.

I echo that the Armageddon codex is a good grab to add. What I'd DEFINITELY recommend is sitting down and making a Summary page for your Orks. They were the only book to my knowledge that didn't have the summary where it listed all stat lines for models and ballistic weapon stats.


I'm curious about the whole "Unkillable skimmer" thing, though. It's not something I've experienced.

In 4th skimmers could only take glancing hits even if they did not move and the only way they died from a glance was a 6-immobilized result.. it really only became an issue with tau and eldar. SM land speeders for example got eaten pretty easily especially if they could not move. Tau had a disruption pod upgrade that forced a re-roll on glancing 6s, eldar holofields made you roll 2d6 and take the lowest result. eldar had the additional bonus of being able to ignore stunned or shaken results on a dice roll thanks to spirit stones. this made tau and especially eldar tanks near impossible to outright destroy.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
5th edition over-toughened vehicles...

Wasn't 5th Ed the advent of Hull Points? That made vehicles weaker.

No that abomination didn't start until 6th. it was horribly implemented and i refuse to play any game that uses them. DUST uses a comparable system but does it right. assigning HPs based on the size of the vehicle from 2 health all the way up to 11 (not blanket 2/3/4, mostly 3 even for a russ) without a critical hit chart (well there is an optional one in the newest edition if you want to use it). that combined with the facts that dust is alternating activation so you don't have a hail of fire from an entire army at once, coupled with the success rate for normal shooting/swinging in dust is 33% it balances out much better.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I'd recommend starting with bare bones 3rd edition with the BBB lists, and only add in the later codices if you have the TVR/TAR.

THIS. Unless someone really wants to play Tau or Necrons, keep it to the BBB and the lists printed inside. Corehammer 3rd is the most balanced version you'll find and a really good introduction to newer players since it lacks the flashy, gamey aspects the Codexes bring in.

Spot on. I'd love to go back and just play 3rd edition big rule book lists. Balanced, and all in one book. Also no scale creep, no titans. The game knew what it was, a platoon level game..

One of the best things about the 3rd edition is the Rapid Fire rule, it makes players make a choice, unlike now where units can move and still fire at maximum range.

Sadly I doubt I'd find anyone wanting to play the older edition around here.

I'd love for Rapid Fire to go back to the 3rd edition version (though at half range instead of 12").

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I'd love for Rapid Fire to go back to the 3rd edition version (though at half range instead of 12").

That one change would I think cut down on how quickly things die in 8th edition. No more moving, running and shooting at full range with Rapid Fire weapons. A Space Marine can have a threat range of 36", which is too much.

 stonehorse wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I'd love for Rapid Fire to go back to the 3rd edition version (though at half range instead of 12").

That one change would I think cut down on how quickly things die in 8th edition. No more moving, running and shooting at full range with Rapid Fire weapons. A Space Marine can have a threat range of 36", which is too much.

The problem is that now Heavy Weapons become too good, move and fire at full range with a piddly -1 to hit. But it might work

What if Heavy Weapons fired at half the model's BS (rounded down) if it moved?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I'd love for Rapid Fire to go back to the 3rd edition version (though at half range instead of 12").

That one change would I think cut down on how quickly things die in 8th edition. No more moving, running and shooting at full range with Rapid Fire weapons. A Space Marine can have a threat range of 36", which is too much.

The problem is that now Heavy Weapons become too good, move and fire at full range with a piddly -1 to hit. But it might work

-1 to hit... but re-roll 1's, and other such shenanigans.

3rd edition was less about list building and more about choices players make in game. 8th edition's depth is all in list building. 8th edition could have been GW's chance to create a good system as they had 7 previous editions to choose the best bits from... but now they made a car crash.

To the OP, enjoy 3rd edition, it is 40k at its best, play all the missions and if you can do some battle reports.

I know have the urge to track down a 3rd edition rule book, templates, and artillery dice.

 vipoid wrote:
What if Heavy Weapons fired at half the model's BS (rounded down) if it moved?

I'd rather have an additional -1 if fired beyond half range if you moved. But then again I'd prefer to have alternate action and D12 system, so if we're fixing stuff might as well go whole hog.

Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

Thanks all for the input - I've got the core rules, chapter approved 03/04 and ork/chaos dexes inbound over the next two weeks. In the meantime I need to hunt down a set of templates.

Reading the 1st/2nd edition ork dexes was kind of a shock as to how much detail the game has lost in favor of speed. Just the rolls for a shokk attack gun sound like they'd take ages to resolve.

2nd Edition was 50% wargame and 50% role-playing game.

While I don't know if it was ever officially put down in writing, the information I have heard from a number of sources was that the design team was busy revising 2nd edition for a 3rd edition in a similar vein....before getting the project axed and being ordered to go far simpler/faster for future streamlining. This was right around the time GW went publicly traded, etc. I believe they said they did 3rd edition in 5-6 months as it was more or less a complete surprise to the designers.

A game such as 2nd would never support the size of armies that 3rd edition and onwards started to encourage. Smaller armies = less sales, etc.

It was this massive shock from 2nd to 3rd that eventually made me stop playing 40K for a good 10-11 years (around 4th is when I bailed). I wasn't enjoying it anywhere near as much as I had enjoyed 2nd edition. It was very much like going from a PC game ...to find out the sequel is an app game for your phone. It was that level of surprise. Now the designers and GW did as well as they probably could given the time constraints, but it definitely soured a lot of people - but overall probably attracted far more customers in the long run.

Financially the simplification was a positive move, I believe. For every person, like myself, who wandered away from the game, I'd imagine 3-4 came into it.

CptMendoza wrote:
Thanks all for the input - I've got the core rules, chapter approved 03/04 and ork/chaos dexes inbound over the next two weeks. In the meantime I need to hunt down a set of templates.

Reading the 1st/2nd edition ork dexes was kind of a shock as to how much detail the game has lost in favor of speed. Just the rolls for a shokk attack gun sound like they'd take ages to resolve.

Yeah that is one of the great things about the older codexes. i think the 3rd ed dark angels mini dex has more fluff in it than all the full codexes that came after it.

the ork codex in 4th/5th was also still fun with the ramshackle table for trukks and the random effects of the shokk attack gun for example . always fun to see a big mech turn into a warp grenade of random size.

The 3rd ed codexes were very rules dense, fluff light. Maybe the most extreme skew on that until the Indexes dropped at the start of 8th. Still a few gems in them, but it wasn’t just in comparison to the glorious 2nd ed books. They were very mechanical.

The background was delivered differently in the 3rd edition codices than it is today though, instead of saying "Ork culture is X, Eldar history is Y" it had much more in-universe information. An Archon's interpretation about how Commorragh functioned, an Imperial bureacrat's findings about how Space Marine Chapter's were organised or the court martial of an Imperial Guard commander who had fallen victim to a surprise attack by Orks.

Not only was this a cleverer way of delivering the background info but it left more room for interpretation and creativitivity.

 aphyon wrote:

5th edition over-toughened vehicles and was the start of inflating invuln saves and propogation of too many high AP weapons.

So you are totally not seeing the correlation in game design there? make vehicles harder to kill but balance it out by allowing more anti-tank weapons in the game? it was part of the strategic play, knowng which fight to fight with which units.

It was the start of an offensive-defensive escalation cycle that reduced the effectiveness of common troops, and I'm not sure dropping Plasma Sternguard on anything/everything was amazing strategic play.

 aphyon wrote:
What was "overtough" and superior by all measurements from 3rd -5th was monsterous creatures. some small arms could hut them but they could not be stunned, pinned, or otherwise hampered unless they were dead. and against the so called "toughened vheicles" they were can-openers. even my landraiders rarely survived being assaulted by a bloodthirster, carnifex or hive tyrant.

None of the MCs of 4th edition was particularly over-tough. Toughest MCs were the C'tan at (I think) T8 5W 4++, and they were unique, slow and cost 300+ points. Bloodthirster might have been T6 5W 3+ 4++. And yes, if a Bloodthirster or Carnifex gets to your Land Raider your Land Raider should be dead. I'm 100% fine with that paradigm.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

You are missing the point. 3rd edition Rapid Fire rules put players on a position where they had to make hard choices. 'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it.'

Hard choices like this are what should be the main point of strategic play in a miniature wargame. A player who has lost should be able to look back and pin point what choices they did wrong. Sadly 8th seems to have erased that element.

The 3rd Ed Rapid Fire rules were also designed around the balance between Shuriken Catapults being Assault 2 12", which looks pretty good compared to 3rd ed Rapid Fire Bolters. As Rapid Fire changed, bolters just continued to get way better while Catapults and other weapons stayed the same, until they became kind of a joke by comparison.

Which always struck me as odd, back in 2nd edition Shuriken Catapults had a 24" range. Along with the -2 save modifer, and a sustained fire die, they were perfect at killing Marines... and most infantry for that matter.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The 3rd Ed Rapid Fire rules were also designed around the balance between Shuriken Catapults being Assault 2 12", which looks pretty good compared to 3rd ed Rapid Fire Bolters. As Rapid Fire changed, bolters just continued to get way better while Catapults and other weapons stayed the same, until they became kind of a joke by comparison.

I agree, but you don’t even need to go outside the marine codex to see the evolution.

It wasn’t until 8th where the stormbolter finally came back.

In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

The SB got 2 shots at 24” and you could move and charge without issue.

The difference in force projection was HUGE. Stormbolters were worth the points. But while the statlines stayed the same, the rapid fire rules got better and better each edition. To the point where SBs were a joke.

I recall the tactical decision to move or shoot was big in 3rd. If you moved up, you were not shooting well (or at all). But there was a dance where you wanted to be the first one to be double-tapping. So sit back and take your limited fire? Or move up to set yourself up for next turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
Which always struck me as odd, back in 2nd edition Shuriken Catapults had a 24" range. Along with the -2 save modifer, and a sustained fire die, they were perfect at killing Marines... and most infantry for that matter.

That was a nerf that many of us still hurt from.

Hey, I know we are a dieing race, here is your SMG, go hug a tyranid.

 aphyon wrote:

CptMendoza wrote:
Thanks all for the input - I've got the core rules, chapter approved 03/04 and ork/chaos dexes inbound over the next two weeks. In the meantime I need to hunt down a set of templates.

Reading the 1st/2nd edition ork dexes was kind of a shock as to how much detail the game has lost in favor of speed. Just the rolls for a shokk attack gun sound like they'd take ages to resolve.

Yeah that is one of the great things about the older codexes. i think the 3rd ed dark angels mini dex has more fluff in it than all the full codexes that came after it.

the ork codex in 4th/5th was also still fun with the ramshackle table for trukks and the random effects of the shokk attack gun for example . always fun to see a big mech turn into a warp grenade of random size.

I can't say I was a fan of the 3rd Edition Dark Angels Mini-Dex. It was a huge step backwards from the 2nd Edition Codex, even if the 2nd Ed Codex was shared with the Blood Angels. The 3rd Ed DA Mini-Dex didn't have very much fluff at all, although it did have Veteran Sergeant Naaman so its not all bad! I played Orks in 2nd Ed, but found them humourless and flavourless from 3rd Ed onwards. That's just me!

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

 Nevelon wrote:
That was a nerf that many of us still hurt from.

To be fair - guardians in 2nd edition were armed with lasguns, not shuriken catapults. I guess in 3rd edition that would have translated to a 30pt squad upgrade to get counts-as stormbolters... I could see players going for that.

In 2nd edition you could upgrade your guardians with shuriken catapults for 3 points a model (the weapon being 5 points by itself, for comparison a plasma gun was 8 points). A shuriken catapult matched stats with a storm bolter while having an additional -1 save modifier.

Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

Also 2nd edition was extremely deadly, more so for Toughness 3 models wearing 5+ armour, so guardians died if you glanced in their direction. I'd even have taken lasguns on my guardians in place of 12" guns they were later saddled with.

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Sure, and I fully disagree. They could have easily made vehicles equivalent to BS4 if they wanted to mimic targeters. But giving Guardians BS and WS 4 which is what the Aspect Warriors have is a gak stupid decision. 40K in general needs to get the feth over the stupid "everyone should be stunningly good and accurate"...it's what ruins any wargame, and is arguably 8th's biggest failing. A BS4 in 2nd edition also mattered far less than later editions because you actually had modifiers to hit (read: cover, speed, etc.).

Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

But you'd think eventually they'd figure out what worked best in each edition and try to combine it.

Personally I'd prefer 4th with the 3.5 codex. And IA 13 adjusted to fit the rules.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

 Elbows wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Sure, and I fully disagree. They could have easily made vehicles equivalent to BS4 if they wanted to mimic targeters. But giving Guardians BS and WS 4 which is what the Aspect Warriors have is a gak stupid decision. 40K in general needs to get the feth over the stupid "everyone should be stunningly good and accurate"...it's what ruins any wargame, and is arguably 8th's biggest failing. A BS4 in 2nd edition also mattered far less than later editions because you actually had modifiers to hit (read: cover, speed, etc.).

Fair. The big crime still is leaving the Catapult in the dust over the editions. Now we have Intercessors shooting twice on the move at 30" with a -2 sv. while the Shuriken Catapult has a 12" range and no AP. It's an abomination.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

I agree with the rest but why this specifically?

I also need to point out that the costs for things was very different. A Tactical Squad with Missile Launcher and Flamer was 360 points. A Land Raider with Twin Heavy Bolters and two Twin Lascannons was 220. The expectation on vehicles was very different.

Yeah, in 2nd edition vehicles were perhaps even more prone to being one-shot killed than in later editions.

The fun though was the use of mega-swingy dice, which drastically created the variety in results.

Vehicles were definitely cheap, but were also pretty damn good as far as laying down firepower. Dreadnoughts were quite devastating with high ballistic skill, coupled with targeters, etc.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

 Kroem wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

Just checked my 3rd ed rulebook.

If you stood still to fire heavy or rapid fire weapons, you could not assault. So no double-tap then charge. But you could move, single shot, and charge.

This might have changed in the trial assault rules, but I’m not digging though my pile of WDs to verify that.

So I’m technically wrong on this one, but I do recall there was a reason I didn’t just blast away and pile in.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

You are missing the point. 3rd edition Rapid Fire rules put players on a position where they had to make hard choices. 'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it.'

Hard choices like this are what should be the main point of strategic play in a miniature wargame. A player who has lost should be able to look back and pin point what choices they did wrong. Sadly 8th seems to have erased that element.

I get the point you're trying to make, but I think the relevancy of that choice, for its own sake, is misplaced. Through playing CSM's and IG during that era, I can't ever recall this being a question that the Rapid Fire rules had any meaningful bearing on the outcome of, it was always a secondary or tertiary consideration at best.

Now, having to make that choice worked well with Heavy Weapons, as their damage output was what many armies were built around, but Rapid Fire weapons were just so incapable at long range (barring Plasma) that the choice was typically illusory (being dictated by other factors instead, such as the presence of a heavy weapon or proximity of a charge) or was generally made moot anyway through army building. Don't forget, it also required an Ld test to shoot at anything other than the closest unit, further reducing the value of having to make that choice with rapid fire weapons as you had a chance to be forced to shoot at something closer anyway by another mechanic.

The damage output of that extended range was so low that it just wasn't a meaningful choice 99% of the time, it was rarely a "hard choice", and forcing that choice ultimately rendered the weapon type ineffective for its role, resulting in a bad mechanic. Players largely avoided having to make choice in the way they picked and built their units and armies, particularly when everything could score and Troops were just a thing you had to take 2 of.

The question of"'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it" was almost always decided by factors other than the Rapid Fire weapons. More typically it was just avoided entirely from the start, and what we actually got was "the 4 dudes with Rapid Fire weapons in this unit are gonna babysit the Lascannon and sit still the whole game on this back field objective or in my table quarter next to the other squad I'm forced to take and probably never have to make that choice, while anything that's going to take an objective is probably going to be kitting to get in close and will always choose to advance anyway, or won't be reliant RF weapons".

I never found the rare edge cases (stuff like a lone depleted guard unit sitting on an objective that could be meaningfully shifted by a half dozen bolter shots) examples to be common or relevant enough to justify keeping the Rapid Fire weapons as restrictive as they were.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Everyone lost it. 2nd ed marine vehicles were BS 5, guard were BS 4, orks were BS 3. Though the eldar did get it back on the fire prism in 4th.

TBH I think the guardian change would have been less conspicuous if not for bladestorm, or as sisters players knew it "what the hell cruddace?"

Third brought the great stat-line flattening. In second we saw a much larger range of numbers on the statlines. In 3rd, it felt like almost everything was either a 3 or a 4.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

I agree with the rest but why this specifically?

I also need to point out that the costs for things was very different. A Tactical Squad with Missile Launcher and Flamer was 360 points. A Land Raider with Twin Heavy Bolters and two Twin Lascannons was 220. The expectation on vehicles was very different.

Well I've never seen the points for 2nd, I could see how they may make more sense if they don't really perform the same roles. Maybe I'm looking at them through the wrong lens. But I'm still pretty sure I'd prefer 3rd up. Familiarity and all that.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Everyone lost it. 2nd ed marine vehicles were BS 5, guard were BS 4, orks were BS 3. Though the eldar did get it back on the fire prism in 4th.

TBH I think the guardian change would have been less conspicuous if not for bladestorm, or as sisters players knew it "what the hell cruddace?"

Not everyone had Targeters though. I don't remember for vehicles but definitely Infantry werent all equipped.

In 2nd edition, most races excluding Orks and Tyranids had targeters on almost every vehicle-borne weapon. However, veteran marines and terminators also had BS5 (2+ shooting), and some terminator weapons had additional targeters, etc.

There was a decent stack of to-hit modifiers though, so it was less amazing than you'd initially suspect. However, if you were stupid enough to be caught out in the open...you'd get raked down. Remember any decent cover (beyond brush/fences) was a -2 modifier to hit. The reason that the old BS system worked well with this was that ultra-powerful characters could more or less ignore most modifiers by dint of having BS 6/7/8, etc.

This is something the game actually lost in 8th edition and I think it was a mistake. While you have easier stats of 2+, 3+, etc....you can't differentiate between say a Primarch at 2+, and a simple Space Marine Captain, etc. They brought back a lot of to-hit modifiers, but by ditching the BS system, they lost maneuvering room with the stats.

^Terminators all came with Targeters, as did all Marine Heavy Weapons, which set them aside from the other Imperial infantry at least. I assume the Eldar Platforms had Targeters, too. But it meant a base 2+ for Devastators and a 1+ for Terminators. Hard Cover against Guardsmen meant they hit on 6s, Hard Cover against Termies meant 3+s, creating a vast difference in ability once to-hit modifiers got involved.

In general I agree, the to-hit mods for cover was a good system, as well as the increased range of skill. I'd prefer that over the re-rolls of 8th for sure.

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

I feel you there- i think my rage at GW never really went away. i had a 3rd ed pure ravenwing and deathwing army based on the restrictions in the mini-dex. for example the only land speeders the raven wing could take were tornados(even back when assault cannons jammed ) and all those attack bike support squads...then the 4th ed codex came out and invalidate 3/4 of the list banning what had been a requirement. something akin to $300 worth of minis in 2004 money.

Thats when i sold off most of my deathwing/ravenwing and started TAU.


Many of the minis i kept from back then i have as display pieces like my FW landraiders. i may use them from time to time but they are not in normal rotation.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

This is the inherent problem with a lack of a FOC, without telling the average gamer what the backbone of an army is youd see the most elite of elite filling all requirements. WFB had the same issue before 6th, and both games were better balanced for the structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

No, that came in with 4th for sure, Trial Assault Rules at the earliest.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

You are missing the point. 3rd edition Rapid Fire rules put players on a position where they had to make hard choices. 'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it.'

Hard choices like this are what should be the main point of strategic play in a miniature wargame. A player who has lost should be able to look back and pin point what choices they did wrong. Sadly 8th seems to have erased that element.

I get the point you're trying to make, but I think the relevancy of that choice, for its own sake, is misplaced. Through playing CSM's and IG during that era, I can't ever recall this being a question that the Rapid Fire rules had any meaningful bearing on the outcome of, it was always a secondary or tertiary consideration at best.

Now, having to make that choice worked well with Heavy Weapons, as their damage output was what many armies were built around, but Rapid Fire weapons were just so incapable at long range (barring Plasma) that the choice was typically illusory (being dictated by other factors instead, such as the presence of a heavy weapon or proximity of a charge) or was generally made moot anyway through army building. Don't forget, it also required an Ld test to shoot at anything other than the closest unit, further reducing the value of having to make that choice with rapid fire weapons as you had a chance to be forced to shoot at something closer anyway by another mechanic.

The damage output of that extended range was so low that it just wasn't a meaningful choice 99% of the time, it was rarely a "hard choice", and forcing that choice ultimately rendered the weapon type ineffective for its role, resulting in a bad mechanic. Players largely avoided having to make choice in the way they picked and built their units and armies, particularly when everything could score and Troops were just a thing you had to take 2 of.

The question of"'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it" was almost always decided by factors other than the Rapid Fire weapons. More typically it was just avoided entirely from the start, and what we actually got was "the 4 dudes with Rapid Fire weapons in this unit are gonna babysit the Lascannon and sit still the whole game on this back field objective or in my table quarter next to the other squad I'm forced to take and probably never have to make that choice, while anything that's going to take an objective is probably going to be kitting to get in close and will always choose to advance anyway, or won't be reliant RF weapons".

I never found the rare edge cases (stuff like a lone depleted guard unit sitting on an objective that could be meaningfully shifted by a half dozen bolter shots) examples to be common or relevant enough to justify keeping the Rapid Fire weapons as restrictive as they were.

As a Necron player in 3rd edition it came up a lot. In a standard 1,500pts game almost a third of that was locked into the core minimum need in the FOC. Necron warriors came in squads of 10 minimum, and only had rapid firing Gauss rifles. It was essentially a bolt gun that could wound/glance on a 6 regardless. Not every force had the option of equipping members of units with Heavy/Assault Weapons or Power weapons. For those forces the Rapid fire rules put them into a position where hard choices had to be made. You mention that you played Chaos and Imperial Guard, both of whom can take more exotic weapons on their basic squad, so I can imagine this painted a different picture for your experience in Rapid Fire weapons.

Lol remember when terminators didn't have an invul save?
You'll also need a white dwarf for Mounted Demonettes and Tau with Railrifles.
Eye of Terror and Armageddon are a must.
Chaos 3.5 is the greatest Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.
And beware Black Templars. Because they fall forward instead of back.
And don't forget you can't use special characters without permission.

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

 DeffDred wrote:
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.

Oooooooooooooooooh, I take it back. Anyone trying to game the game on that level probably thought the Chaos 3.5 codex was fair. For them.


And you got it wrong. You pivot on the spot so in the example you provided the back end of your Rhino would be hanging off the edge of the table when you pivot to move, so you gain possibly a half inch.

 Just Tony wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

 DeffDred wrote:
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.

Oooooooooooooooooh, I take it back. Anyone trying to game the game on that level probably thought the Chaos 3.5 codex was fair. For them.


And you got it wrong. You pivot on the spot so in the example you provided the back end of your Rhino would be hanging off the edge of the table when you pivot to move, so you gain possibly a half inch.

I think DeffDred meant the leading edge of your deployment zone, not back against the table edge.

 Just Tony wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

I never found any TAC build out of that book to be particularly OP. It was more like you could make some insanely skewed lists that would still suffer hugely from the right counterbuild. You could do A LOT with that book, which was really what made it great.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

I never found any TAC build out of that book to be particularly OP. It was more like you could make some insanely skewed lists that would still suffer hugely from the right counterbuild. You could do A LOT with that book, which was really what made it great.

I'd say that's a good assessment. My Night Lords never felt "horribly balanced and overpowered" but some legions could make some pretty nasty skew lists. But skew lists have always been a problem.

And anybody who thinks 3.5 csm where the most OP thing gw ever did has never played pre-marines FAQ Iron Hands. And that's just the most recent example.

There does not exist a time that 40k wasn’t broken. “What" and “How” change with the wind, but it has always been the case.

Find a group of like minded people to play, and it’s a great game. But have a “fun” player up against someone working the system for min/max advantage? Not so much.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'd say that's a good assessment. My Night Lords never felt "horribly balanced and overpowered" but some legions could make some pretty nasty skew lists.

I think it's fair to say that you could play a 'friendly' 3.5 list. The book was just notable in the many a varied ways you could be a dick with it, from lists with more than twice the heavy support of anything else in the edition to those that couldn't be attacked at all until they were charging into assault with you.

If you wanted Heavy Support you could also run the IG Armored Company, or SM with Veteran Devastator Squads, which made the Elite iirc. Or 8 Land Raiders because it was a dedicated tranport for Terminators and Command Squads (Or maybe just Terminator Command Squads) Not that you had the points for it, but you technically could fit it in the FOC.

There were a lot of pretty permissive rules then, it was awesome.

A.T. wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I'd say that's a good assessment. My Night Lords never felt "horribly balanced and overpowered" but some legions could make some pretty nasty skew lists.

I think it's fair to say that you could play a 'friendly' 3.5 list. The book was just notable in the many a varied ways you could be a dick with it, from lists with more than twice the heavy support of anything else in the edition to those that couldn't be attacked at all until they were charging into assault with you.

True. Iron Warriors could be ridiculous. Gw seems to have a thing for legions/chapters with "iron" in their name.

The book was everything people love about it and everything people hate about it. The 3.5E CSM book had numerous overpowered broken and gimmicky things, it had tremendous customization, it beautifully illustrated and evoked the feel of the Traitor Legions, and had just as much practically unusable garbage

 Vaktathi wrote:
and had just as much practically unusable garbage

For instance, basically the entire section on Thousand Sons.

 Elbows wrote:
40K in general needs to get the feth over the stupid "everyone should be stunningly good and accurate"

Unless you're a Damon Prince. Or a Tyranid monster. Then you're as good at hitting things as Guardsmen.

I don't mean to necro a thread but figure it's better than raising a new one.


Any of you old heads know of a way to create lists for 3rd in an easier fashion than pen and paper? Both myself and my roommate are spoiled by battlescribe and would prefer to keep things as digital as possible besides the books.

My 3e orkodex finally arrived and I plan on reading it back to front a few times this weekend while I wait on the BRB and chaos dex to arrive.

3rd? Ah, I played Blood Angels and found out that GW turned them into idiots who couldn't stand still.

CptMendoza wrote:
I don't mean to necro a thread but figure it's better than raising a new one.


Any of you old heads know of a way to create lists for 3rd in an easier fashion than pen and paper? Both myself and my roommate are spoiled by battlescribe and would prefer to keep things as digital as possible besides the books.

My 3e orkodex finally arrived and I plan on reading it back to front a few times this weekend while I wait on the BRB and chaos dex to arrive.

AFAIK there isn't any army builder program for 3E out there, IIRC Lone Wolf's Army Builder didn't debut until a year or so into 4E (so sometime in 2005) and that was the first program I can recall of that sort (at least that was widely used). One could probably build Battlescribe files for 3E, but I'm not aware of any currently.

That said, if you found an old version of AB and some pre-2008 data files, that would effectively do the trick (as the 3E codex was in use through most of 4E until early '08) though I have no idea where you'd find them these days.

 Vaktathi wrote:

CptMendoza wrote:
I don't mean to necro a thread but figure it's better than raising a new one.


Any of you old heads know of a way to create lists for 3rd in an easier fashion than pen and paper? Both myself and my roommate are spoiled by battlescribe and would prefer to keep things as digital as possible besides the books.

My 3e orkodex finally arrived and I plan on reading it back to front a few times this weekend while I wait on the BRB and chaos dex to arrive.

AFAIK there isn't any army builder program for 3E out there, IIRC Lone Wolf's Army Builder didn't debut until a year or so into 4E (so sometime in 2005) and that was the first program I can recall of that sort (at least that was widely used). One could probably build Battlescribe files for 3E, but I'm not aware of any currently.

That said, if you found an old version of AB and some pre-2008 data files, that would effectively do the trick (as the 3E codex was in use through most of 4E until early '08) though I have no idea where you'd find them these days.

I know Army Builder was around in 3rd Edition. I remember fooling around with lists when I was in Middle School/Early High School (1999-2002). I had zero luck finding anything.

I do remember the old website Portent had people create and share spreadsheets to make creating armies easier. They contained no special rules like Army Builder and Battle Scribe, but it did save time. I'm not sure how excel savvy you are, but it is an option to create one on your own.

In theory you could make your own dataset for Battlescribe. No idea how hard it is to edit those, but the core of army creation had not changed that much. Mostly just more options these days. Pare all those back, and you return to 3rd.