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.

Neither old nor young wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Well, not EXACTLY there are models that have more than three weapons. The restriction was in the armories, that stated that models upgraded from the armories couldn't be equipped with more than 2 weapons. If they could get weapons other ways, they had a loophole. In the first 3rd edition Imperial Guard codex, for example, Rough Riders could have a pistol, CCW, hunting lance, AND a lasgun. Also of note, any Commissar attached to a Rough Rider Squad got a horse for free.

Are you sure about that being the first 3rd Ed IG codex? It’s been 20 years, but I read that a lot as a kid, and recall Commissars being exclusively part of the command squad (on foot).

Unless I've mixed up which one is the 3e 'dex, cuda is right:

Codex pg 13 wrote:Options: The Commissar may be given additional equipment from the Armoury. Commissars accompanying a Sergeant who is leading a unit of Rough Riders must also ride a mount, although he receives one at no additional point cost.

The bit about "accompanying a Sergeant" is due to their deployment rules being weird (each Commissar accompanies a specific officer, starting with the highest rank and going to the lowest. This means the first Commissar always deployed with the Command HQ, but subsequent ones could join a RR squad if you had more Commissars than Colonels/Captains/Lieutenants) - maybe that's what you were thinking of?

 waefre_1 wrote:

Unless I've mixed up which one is the 3e 'dex, cuda is right:

Codex pg 13 wrote:Options: The Commissar may be given additional equipment from the Armoury. Commissars accompanying a Sergeant who is leading a unit of Rough Riders must also ride a mount, although he receives one at no additional point cost.

The bit about "accompanying a Sergeant" is due to their deployment rules being weird (each Commissar accompanies a specific officer, starting with the highest rank and going to the lowest. This means the first Commissar always deployed with the Command HQ, but subsequent ones could join a RR squad if you had more Commissars than Colonels/Captains/Lieutenants) - maybe that's what you were thinking of?

The one with the green cover and the guard in the trench.
I never had enough commissars to get to the Sergeant level, so I suppose I just didn’t think of it enough to have it stick. There we go.
Thanks for the fact check.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
In the 1998 rules, no infantry model can have three weapons. They have a max of two weapons, and only one of those can be two-handed.

Chaos Marines carrying three weapons in the 2007 codex is informally called "ultragrit," since it is a much simpler alternative to the previous true grit special rule. The general categories of one- or two- handed rules don't exist from the 04 edition onwards, and are only replicated in very specific examples like the relic blade.

Well, not EXACTLY there are models that have more than three weapons. The restriction was in the armories, that stated that models upgraded from the armories couldn't be equipped with more than 2 weapons. If they could get weapons other ways, they had a loophole. In the first 3rd edition Imperial Guard codex, for example, Rough Riders could have a pistol, CCW, hunting lance, AND a lasgun. Also of note, any Commissar attached to a Rough Rider Squad got a horse for free.

Did they have to take the free horse? Because I now have the image of a really crappy commissar insisting that he does not ride and forcing the cavalry to move at his pace

When they are out of sight over the nearest dune there may be a tragic hunting lance accident.

I believe (and this is YEARS since I saw it in person) the rules stated that any Commissar attached to a Rough Rider unit is equipped with a mount at no additional cost. So, no, I don't think it was optional. I did convert a Commissar, but being both broke, and funny, he didn't get a horse. He got to ride a pig, I believe it was the one available to the Fantasy Ork Boarboyz at the time. I found it in the store's bits box. "Sorry Sir, this is the best we could find you on short notice, lol".

Edit: Looks like someone posted the actual quote from the codex.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
When I decided I was done staying current with GW games I had the opportunity to go to ANY game system I wanted. I chose 3rd. That should tell you how I feel about it.

I wish there were more people like in you 2011! We were moving and while I would have preferred to sell the books, their market value was zero. Stores didn't want them, online they got no bids so with great sorrow I had to pitch them after my efforts toward giving them away failed.

Why throw them away? You could have donated them to a book shop, Goodwill, ANYTHING. I detest 8th and 9th 40K but I'd never throw the Ork codex I was gifted into the trash.

On "was 3e the best"...
I dunno, it's hard to say. Taking just the core rules, I think I liked 4e the best.

But playing during 3e was great because there was so much going on - 3rd war for Armageddon, even the 13th Crusade. That was when BFG was released as well, so it was just a really cool time to be into 40K.

4e for me was soured by waiting pretty much the entire edition to get my codex, and the knowledge that other factions had waited the entire edition and never actually gotten a codex at all. And I'd say the codices of that era were probably worse than the 3e ones in terms of their rules, though better for background.

5e had decent core rules but TLOS is a bugbear of mine, and it lost the run of itself with the codices and the tone as it went on.

6e, I read the core rules, played a game, and stopped playing 40K. Checked back in in 7e and everything seemed worse, and then in 8e GW wanted me to rebase my stuff so I noped out.

When going back to this era, it was the 3e book I picked up, but that's mostly because it had all the army lists in it, so it's kind of a complete package. One of these days I'll get round to making "Black Book" style Tau and Necron lists and introduce my buddy to middlehammer 40K.

One thing I did like about 3rd was the cross fire rule. I'd build a Dark Eldar army around using that rule and successfully table a couple of different armies. One game I was so wrapped up in what I was doing I didn't realize the game was over. Forcing fall backs and exploiting the cross fire rule with raider transports. Nice gimmick for a little while.

I did not enjoy the close combat rules. I guess they weren't the worst but they weren't all that good either. I recall a conga line of terminators with power fists still swinging on Initiative 1 because they had been in combat at the start but the models they had been in base with were already removed, didn't matter they still got to throw their pounces.

I did like the guess weapons, I liked guessing and I got fairly good at it. It wasn't all that difficult to get reasonably good at.

as far as scatter dice went, I would roll the dice as close to the target unit as possible so the scatter direction was easy enough to get as correct as possible. I do remember the issues people had with those dice, this really mitigated the problem.

Terrain was squirrely some times.

Nothing chatting about terrain ahead of time couldn't sort out.

I really enjoyed the City Fight campaign. We had a lot of good games playing with those rules. I ran the campaign for the club and we seemed to all have a good time.

 warhead01 wrote:
One thing I did like about 3rd was the cross fire rule. I'd build a Dark Eldar army around using that rule and successfully table a couple of different armies. One game I was so wrapped up in what I was doing I didn't realize the game was over. Forcing fall backs and exploiting the cross fire rule with raider transports. Nice gimmick for a little while.

I did not enjoy the close combat rules. I guess they weren't the worst but they weren't all that good either. I recall a conga line of terminators with power fists still swinging on Initiative 1 because they had been in combat at the start but the models they had been in base with were already removed, didn't matter they still got to throw their pounces.

I did like the guess weapons, I liked guessing and I got fairly good at it. It wasn't all that difficult to get reasonably good at.

as far as scatter dice went, I would roll the dice as close to the target unit as possible so the scatter direction was easy enough to get as correct as possible. I do remember the issues people had with those dice, this really mitigated the problem.

Terrain was squirrely some times.

Nothing chatting about terrain ahead of time couldn't sort out.

I really enjoyed the City Fight campaign. We had a lot of good games playing with those rules. I ran the campaign for the club and we seemed to all have a good time.

Power Fists didn't reduce you to Initiative 1 in 3rd. That was later editions. I'm also gonna check that combat rule in the book when I get home. I'm not sure but your group may have been playing that wrong.

 Just Tony wrote:
Power Fists didn't reduce you to Initiative 1 in 3rd. That was later editions. I'm also gonna check that combat rule in the book when I get home. I'm not sure but your group may have been playing that wrong.

Power fists reduced you to initiative 0 (or more accurately - strikes last regardless of initiative) - page 66 of the core 3e book.

 warhead01 wrote:
as far as scatter dice went, I would roll the dice as close to the target unit as possible so the scatter direction was easy enough to get as correct as possible. I do remember the issues people had with those dice, this really mitigated the problem.

Something I did while playing around with a 'simplehammer' system was to mark up numbers on the blast template.
You'd place the template with '1' pointed directly at the firing unit and then roll a single dice for scatter - moving the template in the direction of the matching number. Straight lines drawn on the template let you align your measuring tape.

We also used to use measuring straws - 6" straws cut back exactly the width of one base. Put the straw against the base and move the model to the end for instant accurate movement (normally just for the first couple of models then we'd shove the rest up behind unless a half inch on a back-row model was important).

I’ll never understand why Terminators also struck last, given the armour’s whole purpose is protection, and to make the unwieldy, wieldy.

A.T. wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Power Fists didn't reduce you to Initiative 1 in 3rd. That was later editions. I'm also gonna check that combat rule in the book when I get home. I'm not sure but your group may have been playing that wrong.

Power fists reduced you to initiative 0 (or more accurately - strikes last regardless of initiative) - page 66 of the core 3e book.

 warhead01 wrote:
as far as scatter dice went, I would roll the dice as close to the target unit as possible so the scatter direction was easy enough to get as correct as possible. I do remember the issues people had with those dice, this really mitigated the problem.

Something I did while playing around with a 'simplehammer' system was to mark up numbers on the blast template.
You'd place the template with '1' pointed directly at the firing unit and then roll a single dice for scatter - moving the template in the direction of the matching number. Straight lines drawn on the template let you align your measuring tape.

We also used to use measuring straws - 6" straws cut back exactly the width of one base. Put the straw against the base and move the model to the end for instant accurate movement (normally just for the first couple of models then we'd shove the rest up behind unless a half inch on a back-row model was important).

Thank you, It's been a very long time ago now!

I do like the idea of numbering the template ect. Wish we'd thought of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll never understand why Terminators also struck last, given the armour’s whole purpose is protection, and to make the unwieldy, wieldy.

I can see where you're coming from. Honestly I think it was just each weapon needed to behave a little different than the next. TDA could have had an exception sure but 3rd was very streamlined compared to 2nd. If it had turned up in 3.5 or 4th that would probably have worked.
I recall the Space Marine codex being very difficult to use well.

My favorite missions for a fun pick up game was cleans and later clean 2. With the right amount of terrain those could be really good games even as simple as they were.

 warhead01 wrote:
One thing I did like about 3rd was the cross fire rule. I'd build a Dark Eldar army around using that rule and successfully table a couple of different armies. One game I was so wrapped up in what I was doing I didn't realize the game was over. Forcing fall backs and exploiting the cross fire rule with raider transports. Nice gimmick for a little while.

Doing this kind of thing is the game unto itself in a lot of ways. You need at least two units, one to force the morale check and one to get between the fleeing unit and its board edge. This makes it a lot more of a game than most other parts of 40k, game as in Go or connect four, or rummy or billiards. It's another embodiment of what people are talking about when they say they liked rear armour shots, except it's a better example since it takes more planning to set up and has a better payoff.

So that's an alternative question to "what's the best edition?" I really want to know if any of the editions cross the minimum threshold demanding this kind of challenging in-game planning.

The answer is universally no. Third edition you could use this crossfire mechanic if you really wanted to, but it didn't necessarily help that much. You could set up pinball shots of sweeping advances from on combat to the next, but this was mostly thought of as an exploit and less as a big strategic victory

 warhead01 wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll never understand why Terminators also struck last, given the armour’s whole purpose is protection, and to make the unwieldy, wieldy.

I can see where you're coming from. Honestly I think it was just each weapon needed to behave a little different than the next. TDA could have had an exception sure but 3rd was very streamlined compared to 2nd. If it had turned up in 3.5 or 4th that would probably have worked.
I recall the Space Marine codex being very difficult to use well.

My favorite missions for a fun pick up game was cleans and later clean 2. With the right amount of terrain those could be really good games even as simple as they were.

There are five very true explanations for always-strikes-last. I think answering those questions, and Mezmorki's 3rd-7th compatible perfect rules posted on dakka do solve most of those problems, doesn't really do anything. This thread has a lot of back and forth about the two different versions of AP that 40k has used, and those rules have the best practical solution for AP that's still compatible with GW codexes. There's also some platonic ideal for the best practical solution to powerfists vs power swords. I thibk that perfectly tweaking these rules does not move the ball on whether 40k is good or not.


Cleanse missions means claiming table quarters, which like you say is pretty fun and simplistic at the same time. To some extent it's a compromise game between people who want to put their models down amd roll dice and people who want a maneuver game

Also, on Terminators? Would I be right in thinking the Squad Sarge had to have a Power Sword?

Honestly can’t remember if that was just a result of the basic kit, or compulsory?

pelicaniforce wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
One thing I did like about 3rd was the cross fire rule. I'd build a Dark Eldar army around using that rule and successfully table a couple of different armies. One game I was so wrapped up in what I was doing I didn't realize the game was over. Forcing fall backs and exploiting the cross fire rule with raider transports. Nice gimmick for a little while.

Doing this kind of thing is the game unto itself in a lot of ways. You need at least two units, one to force the morale check and one to get between the fleeing unit and its board edge. This makes it a lot more of a game than most other parts of 40k, game as in Go or connect four, or rummy or billiards. It's another embodiment of what people are talking about when they say they liked rear armour shots, except it's a better example since it takes more planning to set up and has a better payoff.

So that's an alternative question to "what's the best edition?" I really want to know if any of the editions cross the minimum threshold demanding this kind of challenging in-game planning.

The answer is universally no. Third edition you could use this crossfire mechanic if you really wanted to, but it didn't necessarily help that much. You could set up pinball shots of sweeping advances from on combat to the next, but this was mostly thought of as an exploit and less as a big strategic victory

 warhead01 wrote:
[
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’ll never understand why Terminators also struck last, given the armour’s whole purpose is protection, and to make the unwieldy, wieldy.

I can see where you're coming from. Honestly I think it was just each weapon needed to behave a little different than the next. TDA could have had an exception sure but 3rd was very streamlined compared to 2nd. If it had turned up in 3.5 or 4th that would probably have worked.
I recall the Space Marine codex being very difficult to use well.

My favorite missions for a fun pick up game was cleans and later clean 2. With the right amount of terrain those could be really good games even as simple as they were.

There are five very true explanations for always-strikes-last. I think answering those questions, and Mezmorki's 3rd-7th compatible perfect rules posted on dakka do solve most of those problems, doesn't really do anything. This thread has a lot of back and forth about the two different versions of AP that 40k has used, and those rules have the best practical solution for AP that's still compatible with GW codexes. There's also some platonic ideal for the best practical solution to powerfists vs power swords. I thibk that perfectly tweaking these rules does not move the ball on whether 40k is good or not.


Cleanse missions means claiming table quarters, which like you say is pretty fun and simplistic at the same time. To some extent it's a compromise game between people who want to put their models down amd roll dice and people who want a maneuver game

To the cross fire Eldar list, I remember there were vehicle upgrades that would/could inflict the checks as well as wargear for characters if I remember. There may have been something in there for the vehicles that would lower enemy LD but I can't recall.

I got the Dark Eldar from a Game store kid with too much money. I traded him a CSM army for his DE collection after I'd tabled him with my CSM army one time. I think I ended up with about 750 dollars with of DE. After I ran that DE list and tabled the army he'd just gotten from me he bought that from me. Meh. I still had DE left over that I would eventually get rid of. Most of his stuff was in bad shape so of course it would never have been worth the full value from the catalogue.
That silly kid kept trying to buy winning armies from everyone and was fixated on winning tournaments. Kids stuff really.

I wish my friends would give Mezmorki's rules a try but they seem to have little to no interest in that or even 40K any more. Keeping up with the new rules ruined 40K for a lot of us. Some ideas were clever but other ideas were just better in that they were more consistent or at least easier to play and didn't really need to be replaced. People love 5th but some of the mechanics in there are just trash when it comes to playing some armies. My Orks were constantly being punished. I'm told that codex was really good but it had only a few builds most of which excluded my style of play, lots of Boys on foot. 2 good builds does not a good codex make.

The simplicity of cleanse was a bit of a joy. those games could come down to a close loss, close win or a tie and be a blast the whole time.

I didn't pay to get off the rollercoaster I paid to take the ride. Sadly 40K stopped being fun some years ago, a disappointing here and there and what have you. Rules might have looked good but then power creep just takes off. The lesson is never play the army that gets the first codex of an edition. In 7th that was Orks.
Sorry, my mind is wandering.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, on Terminators? Would I be right in thinking the Squad Sarge had to have a Power Sword?

Honestly can’t remember if that was just a result of the basic kit, or compulsory?

That's how I remember it. I'd open the codex and look but I've mislaid them some time ago.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, on Terminators? Would I be right in thinking the Squad Sarge had to have a Power Sword?

Honestly can’t remember if that was just a result of the basic kit, or compulsory?

In 3rd, Terminator sergeants came with power sword and storm bolter as standard, but had access to the armoury and could exchange for any weapons compatible with Terminator armour. Pricy option though, as they didn't get a discount for already having a power sword and storm bolter.

 warhead01 wrote:
People love 5th but some of the mechanics in there are just trash when it comes to playing some armies. My Orks were constantly being punished. I'm told that codex was really good but it had only a few builds most of which excluded my style of play, lots of Boys on foot. 2 good builds does not a good codex make.

5e orks were 4e orks who could run and get 4+ cover saves from screening units.

But the biker abuse was more popular, and kan walls, and the battlewagon meatgrinder, the occasional smuggled 'ambush' character, deffkopta slingshots (a theoretical 26" first turn assault)... Orks had several very different builds in 5th and were pretty much impossible to listhammer against reliably as a result.

But combat resolution in 5th did absolutely suck for low save fearless units and orks holding a home objective often sat out a lot of the game.

 warhead01 wrote:
I did not enjoy the close combat rules. I guess they weren't the worst but they weren't all that good either. I recall a conga line of terminators with power fists still swinging on Initiative 1 because they had been in combat at the start but the models they had been in base with were already removed, didn't matter they still got to throw their pounces.

I'm certain terminators didn't go last - I'd have remembered that rule.

As for the conga line, troops were supposed to move deeper into contact if neither side broke, and only troops in contact got to fight with their special weapons. All others with 3" of the enemy got to "throw rocks" (make 1 attack at their normal strength with no special abilities).

This was why positioning was so important, and units were set into specific formations to either maximize models in contact or minimize it. In a lot of ways, it felt like a skirmish-level WHFB.

Since this is all about things I hated, I hated the fact that boltguns were inferior to bolt pistols in almost every application. Given the choice, pistol and sword was the way to go, especially if you're in power armor. If you do the math, a squad armed with boltgun and chainsword will defeat a squad armed with bolters even advancing on foot in open terrain.

Oh, and since it came up, I tossed my books because at that time, none of the local stores would take them. Glut on the market from all the edition churn, I expect, and since I was moving, it was "keep or toss" mode. I wasn't going to do extra innings with my wife over books I didn't like and never planned to use again.

Terminators didn't get any special rules for power fists in 3rd ed. They did get to always count as stationary when firing ranged weapons, though.


3rd was not a great edition for terminators. Their defences were cost-inefficient against the most popular kind of firepower their melee abilities were niche and expensive, and their mobility was mediocre at best.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
I'm certain terminators didn't go last - I'd have remembered that rule.

As a Deathwing player, I can assure you they definitely did strike last when wielding fists. 3rd Edition did Terminators dirty in almost every conceivable way. Considering they weren't exactly stellar in 2nd, this was a bit of a gut punch.

They started with a 2+ save, no invuln, and their primary assault weapon struck last. They were costed around/above the mid 40's in terms of points (DW cost 52 freaking points), but died like chumps to any sort of anti-armour. Add in the neutering of their support weapons and they were pretty terrible (and stayed that way for a good long time).

It never helped that my primary opponent was Eldar... so he had whole units that could wipe a squad each turn between Howling Banshees and Fire Dragons. The move from save mods to binary AP was not kind to terminators and they really needed something more for quite a while.

As for the topic, I'll generally agree with Mad Doc. I hated 3rd with a passion. 3rd was the edition that pushed me away from 40k and introduced me to the wider hobby (I came back a couple times, but it never felt great to me). It lost all the cinematic and narrative mechanics and became a cold, sterile affair of placing your rocks near the opponent's scissors and hoping they didn't have paper within striking distance. The friction was gone. A lot of the character was stripped out and the moment-to-moment tactical considerations were streamlined below what I preferred (especially as, to me, 40k was supposed to be a platoon level skirmish game; but 3rd was the start of turning it in to wrong-scale epic with too much crammed on the table).

I won't begrudge those who remember it fondly, but 3rd was the nail in the 40k coffin for me. These days, if I do play, I play 2nd. I prefer my 40k goofy, random, and prone to creating memorable stories regardless of the outcome of the game.

A.T. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
People love 5th but some of the mechanics in there are just trash when it comes to playing some armies. My Orks were constantly being punished. I'm told that codex was really good but it had only a few builds most of which excluded my style of play, lots of Boys on foot. 2 good builds does not a good codex make.

5e orks were 4e orks who could run and get 4+ cover saves from screening units.

But the biker abuse was more popular, and kan walls, and the battlewagon meatgrinder, the occasional smuggled 'ambush' character, deffkopta slingshots (a theoretical 26" first turn assault)... Orks had several very different builds in 5th and were pretty much impossible to listhammer against reliably as a result.

But combat resolution in 5th did absolutely suck for low save fearless units and orks holding a home objective often sat out a lot of the game.

Combat resolution is the think that jumps out the most when I think about 5th. Yuck. Such a bad rule.

Wait, I think we all forgot the BEST part of 3rd ed. The red "whippy stick" measurer/pointer thing that came in the starter box. Kids would wack the gak out of each other with those. If I remember GW stopped selling those after a kid took the pointy end into their eye.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

As a Deathwing player, I can assure you they definitely did strike last when wielding fists. 3rd Edition did Terminators dirty in almost every conceivable way. Considering they weren't exactly stellar in 2nd, this was a bit of a gut punch.

I stand corrected. Truth be told, for exactly the reasons you outlined, my terminators collected dust for most of 3rd, which is probably why I didn't remember that much about them.

Obviously I (infamously) tossed my books years after the fact, but if memory serves, in place of terminators I took a "gunboat" dreadnought (lascannon/krak missile) which gave me mobility and accurate firepower. I also went with marines with terminator honors and power weapon/pistol combos because they sliced through armor (even terminators!) for a fraction of the cost.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

A.T. wrote:
You could certainly make a custom 3e ruleset - have D20 table for vehicle damage results, swap out the psychic powers with the warhammer fantasy set that let you reposition whole board tiles, use the original apocalypse assets and formations and then score the whole thing based on randomly drawn and entirely arbitrary mission objectives like 'score points only for units that run off the board' and 'score 10 points if you are wiped out'.

Or I could just stick with the rules that I liked - 2nd - and use some simple fixes to curb their obvious excesses.

A question for those who stuck with the hobby: was 3rd better than its successors? How do you feel it has stacked up against 4-10?

3rd was great, but 4th was better . Better terrain being the hallmark. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the portion of 4th that the 3 5 codex was relevant . Once the "4th edition" CSM codex was released, it became garbage.

5th edition suffered from the aforementioned problem.

6th was garbage

7th was rescued,IMHO, by Forge World and the release of IA13..

Strictly a CSM players perspective, BTW.

Rosebuddy wrote:

3rd was not a great edition for terminators. Their defences were cost-inefficient against the most popular kind of firepower their melee abilities were niche and expensive, and their mobility was mediocre at best.

3rd edition simultaneously nerfing both powerfists and lightning claws, just in completely different ways, is just one of its many sins.

Part of my vitriol against 3rd is that it symbolizes the shift in GW policy from focusing on pushing new and creative products to the sale-centric churn, with rules quality no longer being a concern.

Recently-released interviews with GW production staff confirm what was long suspected: the desired revision of 2nd was derailed by Upper Management, which did not prioritize quality rules or game integrity. As we all know, 2nd was flawed because it was a work in progress. By 1998, however, a series of FAQs had been released to curb its worse excesses. The codicies saw a consistent improvement in quality as well as broadening the model range in appropriate ways (Eldar tanks, for example).

We can get a glimpse of what "2nd ed., Revised" would have looked like in Bolt Action, but what we got was a dumbed-down revision that destroyed much of the fluff, was inadequately playtested and couldn't even go a year before major rules had to be changed.

That set the tone for everything that has come since. "Codex creep" became a thing, but some armies were so pathetic that GW pushed out a 2nd edition within the edition. The model count increased but so did the per-model cost, and GW became quite open that it was a miniatures company, not a game company.

I recall back in the day that a lot of people seemed to really like 3.5 because of those revisions, but it was merely a rest stop before 4.0, which screwed up different things in different ways. That told me that GW wasn't listening to the players, wasn't interested in a "finished" design and just wanted to boost those shareholder dividends so that when the CEO cashed out, he could buy a castle.

To put it another way, 2nd had problems because it was new and it came out in an era where player feedback moved at the speed of a postage stamp. By the time 3rd was released, it was possible for designers to crowdsource playtesting as never before and within weeks understand what wasn't working - along with reasonable suggestions for fixing it. GW hated this and resisted it whenever possible.

So it wasn't just that dreadnoughts suddenly sucked, vehicles moved at a brisk walking pace, the AP system was inherently unbalanced, etc., it was that none of this was ever going to get sorted out.

Close Combat Weapons also lost their fun.

2nd Ed? Even a basic sword could be used to Parry - forcing your opponent to re-roll an attack die (typically their highest), which could allow you to win that fight. Power Swords also hit at S5 with I think -3 to your save.

Power Axes could be wielded one or two handed for different hitting power and so on.

Come 3rd Ed? Close Combat weapon could be a knife, or a Space Marine Chainsword and its…..hit at your own strength, and opponent gets their full save. Power Weapons just ignored armour.

It really ate in to the feeling of uniqueness.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It really ate in to the feeling of uniqueness.

Rapid fire.

It was a nice, simple rule that made all Marines - loyal and rebel - unique. It was also super-fluffy, showing that Marines took small-arms training to the next level.

The iconic image of Marines piled back to back, fighting off endless hordes in a doomed last stand actually could happen. How many time did a game come down to a tactical squad just dumping rapid fire and totally chewing up enemy troops?

And they wrecked it. And Shuricats. So much fluffy fun goodness destroyed.

Yup.

Marines went from feeling tough and highly trained, to just feeling tough.

Consider the Assault Squad. If you weren’t thrifty in 2nd Ed, you could spend a ridiculous amount of points kitting them out with a variety of Power Weapons and Pistols.

I can’t remember the loadout my assault squads had, and they were sold some time ago. But I favoured a few Hand Flamers in each squad. Because despite the template being tiny? They could really hose down light infantry if it was densely packed.

Combat squads were of course something that carried through from 2nd Ed. But, in 2nd Ed opposing squads were never all that large, so it felt like you got more bang for your buck divvying a squad up that way, especially if you split off 5 Bolter Marines to occupy terrain and just rapid fire.

I think we’ve previously discussed Grenades in 2nd Ed? Yes the sheer variety was mind boggling and often bogged the game down, working out what happened to smoke, blind, rad and vortex template by template. But when you’ve had a Scout Squad and snowball a Carnifex to death with Krak Grenades, making them “well one unit member can use one in combat against tanks” just didn’t feel the same.

And throwing Krak at big monsters was cinematic. Literally. We see Dizzy take out a Tanker Bug in Starship Troopers by lobbing an explosive into its mandibles, making its head asplode.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think we’ve previously discussed Grenades in 2nd Ed? Yes the sheer variety was mind boggling and often bogged the game down, working out what happened to smoke, blind, rad and vortex template by template. But when you’ve had a Scout Squad and snowball a Carnifex to death with Krak Grenades, making them “well one unit member can use one in combat against tanks” just didn’t feel the same.

And throwing Krak at big monsters was cinematic. Literally. We see Dizzy take out a Tanker Bug in Starship Troopers by lobbing an explosive into its mandibles, making its head asplode.

Dropping grenades from the tops of buildings is super-fun. Well, for the people dropping them, at least.

Good point about the cinematic aspect of the game being wrecked. Almost every game had wonderful moments like that. One of my first games against Imperial Guard I completely underestimated how many tanks they could bring to bear. Happily, I had chaplain in hiding with a haywire grenade, and so he did the perfect movie thing of breaking cover and wrecking the lead vehicle before massive fire cut him down. Great stuff.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

As a Deathwing player, I can assure you they definitely did strike last when wielding fists. 3rd Edition did Terminators dirty in almost every conceivable way. Considering they weren't exactly stellar in 2nd, this was a bit of a gut punch.

I stand corrected. Truth be told, for exactly the reasons you outlined, my terminators collected dust for most of 3rd, which is probably why I didn't remember that much about them.

Obviously I (infamously) tossed my books years after the fact, but if memory serves, in place of terminators I took a "gunboat" dreadnought (lascannon/krak missile) which gave me mobility and accurate firepower. I also went with marines with terminator honors and power weapon/pistol combos because they sliced through armor (even terminators!) for a fraction of the cost.

Unless you're looking at a special codex like the Space Wolves or potentially the Black Templars, only veterans sergeants or characters could carry power weapons or power fists outside of Terminators. Veterans squads could take terminator honors and then be equipped with bolt pistol and close combat weapon. I know this because I ran a squad in every single game I ever played.

 Just Tony wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

As a Deathwing player, I can assure you they definitely did strike last when wielding fists. 3rd Edition did Terminators dirty in almost every conceivable way. Considering they weren't exactly stellar in 2nd, this was a bit of a gut punch.

I stand corrected. Truth be told, for exactly the reasons you outlined, my terminators collected dust for most of 3rd, which is probably why I didn't remember that much about them.

Obviously I (infamously) tossed my books years after the fact, but if memory serves, in place of terminators I took a "gunboat" dreadnought (lascannon/krak missile) which gave me mobility and accurate firepower. I also went with marines with terminator honors and power weapon/pistol combos because they sliced through armor (even terminators!) for a fraction of the cost.

Unless you're looking at a special codex like the Space Wolves or potentially the Black Templars, only veterans sergeants or characters could carry power weapons or power fists outside of Terminators. Veterans squads could take terminator honors and then be equipped with bolt pistol and close combat weapon. I know this because I ran a squad in every single game I ever played.

You could get 4 power weapons into a command squad, but with Terminator honours it cost a minimum of 43pts/model for the specialists (44pts if you wanted a bolt pistol) and 45pts for the veteran sergeant. Terminators cost 42pts/model and got deepstrike, a storm bolter/twin lightning claws/TH/SS and 2+ save into the bargain, albeit with less attacks or no ranged fire. They also got a 5++ midway through the edition.

Blood Angels honour guard could take a power sword on every model for a total of 38pts/model (40pts on the veteran sergeant) with Terminator honours. Technically that is a fraction of the cost of Terminators (19/21), but not a small one.

Veterans with power weapons and Terminator honours have always been a pricey option.