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.

It's definitely not true that everyone thinks that 3rd edition was the worst edition of the game.

It may just be because it's the edition I cut my wargaming teeth on, but I liked 3rd edition a lot. The armies in the Black Book were pretty well balanced, and my brother and my friends had plenty of fun with it. I really don't see why there's such a stigma about 3rd edition with some people. Yes, it was clearly a vast departure from 2nd edition, but from everything I've heard, 2nd edition was ridiculous. Just because 3rd edition was basically a new game doesn't make it worse. Most of the people who rag on 3rd openly admit they prefer 2nd edition - which is perfectly fine - but, they rarely mention "problems" with the game besides the fact that it has more abstractions, something that is required in order to have any sort of playable wargame.

Other than the fact that 3rd edition has more abstractions than 2nd, has less ridiculous wargear and stupidly overpowered characters supported by mostly useless troops, what makes 3rd edition the worst edition of the game?

I really do want to know. I admit, I've never played 2nd edition, but I've read the Necromunda rules and while I think they're sweet, they would be absolutely horrible if they were scaled up to the level of a 40k game. The whole idea of troops being basically useless and characters annihilating everything gives me that throw-up taste in my mouth. So please, as a younger gamer, someone please tell me why 3rd edition was the worst edition, as opposed to just the edition that was the most different from 2nd edition?

I think third edition was a big mechanical improvement, but I disliked the skinny codices they put out.
I had a blast playing with the black book armies though.
4th was a downgrade from 3rd.

It's less the rules really, and more the era.

Codecies were slashed down to just rules. All the background was sucked out the game. Oddly enough, this was GW responding to what gamers told them they wanted. Less fluff, more rules, cheaper Codecies.

I understand what you guys are saying about the codices, but that has nothing to do with the actual playing of the game. I agree that the codices were thinner on fluff, and more would have been welcome, but not at the expense of decent rules (and let's be honest, 3rd edition's rules were not without their problems, but they were at least decent, and quite playable).

How was the background sucked out of the game though? Yes, the new codices had less fluff, but all the older fluff didn't all of a sudden disappear. Fluff is something that, except in the case of silly retconning, carries over from edition to edition quite easily. The fact that there was less fluff in the 3rd edition Marine codex, for example, didn't mean all the previous fluff on Marines stopped existing. All the old stories about the Ultramarines and the Orks and the Eldar were still "true," even if they weren't included in the new thin codices.

Now, I realize new fluff is nice and helps to keep things fresh (assuming it's good), but the 40k story line hasn't really progressed at all for a very long time, so besides another cliche side panel short story about how five space marines kick a bazillion ork asses until their boots turn green, there's really not that much "zomg famazing!" new fluff that's going to be printed in a codex of any size.

So basically, people didn't like 3rd edition because the rules were playable with just the main rulebook and there wasn't as much new fluff?

Trouble is, you had to hunt for the background, whereas previously it was part and parcel of playing the game.

This caused the terms Beardy and Cheesey to be blurred etc.

And sadly, as for moving the 'storyline' along. It's not a storyline. It's a history. And an entire bloody galaxy. For something to make it's mark felt, that would be a BIG something, quite possibly taking some races out of the equation altogether, so how can you move it on? Sandbox is too big. But, it's plenty big enough for the players to create their own subsector.

Sorry. Went OT there. Do apologise!

So why not create new big somethings? You don't have to wipe out a race to make something a "big event." There are plenty of big events in the history, so why not just make up some new ones? The history can be expanded, thus moving the storyline along, even if it's in an indirect sense.

And the thing is, there was still lots of background the rulebook and the codices. There wasn't as much as before, granted, but it's not like it disappeared entirely.

Like you said, it's plenty big enough for players to create their own subsector.

It seems like mostly veteran players who have the biggest problem with the smaller amount of fluff, which is interesting, since the veteran players would be the ones with easiet access to the mass of fluff that was released before 3rd edition.

They tried that with The Necrons. Ancient race, reawakening after millennia of enforced slumber, to essentially farm the races of the Galaxy for their very real, very corporeal, very hard Gods.

What happens? Nerds the world over spring instant nosebleeds because some book written a decade or so before didn't mention any of this so it can't be canon. It can't it can't it can't. Realm of Chaos and Slaves to Darkness don't mention it, it didn't happen.

Blame the nerds!

Just thinking actually. I mentioned earlier the setting of 40k is a mainly historical one. I'd now like to revise that slightly and change the wording to 'mythological'. Few of the races truly know their heritage. Even the Tau are kind of shaky on what went before. Thus, when something like the C'Tan are revealed, it's just that. Not a Retcon, but a revelation. Through the revival of the C'Tan, we learned what happened to the Old Ones. Rushed races, echoes in the Warp, stirring Gods, Warp out of synch* and BINGO! Dead Old Ones.

*This still ties up with the origins of the Empire. The Shamans used to bathe in the Warp Energies then reincarnate as themselves. As the Gods stirred, Warp became unstable, all top themselves, become a gestalt physical entity which becomes The Emperor. C'Tan fluff did nothing to change this, but more added to it.

Hordini: I liked 3rd edition a lot. It just would have been better with thicker more interesting codices.

This isn't about the races knowing their history within the story of the game. It's about GW writing new background material. Did anybody really think the introduction of the C'Tan was a retcon? Just because something new that hasn't been mentioned previously is introduced, doesn't mean a retcon has taken place. An example of a retcon would be like, "LOL, the Squats never existed!"

Perhaps a better example would be, if GW all of a sudden released all the information on the two lost Space Marine Legions, that wouldn't be a retcon. However, if GW all of a sudden said, "The two lost legions never existed, or the two lost legions are named this and that and were never actually lost, because everyone knew about them," both of those things would be retconning the previous background material.

But really, have these fluff "issues" actually been resolved since 3rd edition?

Let's step back from the fluff problem for a minute though. From just the perspective of gameplay, what was really wrong with 3rd edition, taking into account the idea that it was meant to be an army-level game?

I liked 3rd ed, that rule book was ridiculously grim and dark, every picture had a million skulls and hoses everywhere and sharp stuff. The 5th ed book can't stand up to 3rd ed in grimdarkness.

I think that's something we can all agree on, dear ph34r.

And Da Boss, don't get me wrong, I think thicker codices would have been nicer too. I'm just saying I don't think the actual gameplay, which was rather decent compared to 2nd edition, should be judged so poorly because the codices were lacking in the fluff department.

That we can agree on... I see a progression of increasingly depressive and soullessness. Looks like geeks are slowly becoming emo, eh?

I really think that how you see the rules depends almost exclusively on what edition you are most familiar with when you first started. I started in second (tail end of first), skipped third, was there for all of fourth as well as fifth.

My favourite is fourth, mainly because I've been screwed in so many ways because of fifth. That's the edition I'm most familiar with, so it's basically the standard for me. And through these posts I see everyone their positive bias to whatever edition they went through from start to finish in the beginning of their career.

LONG LIVE 2nd!

I would *love* to see GW reintroduce a squad based game like Necromunda.

Me too man, me too.. (Nostalgia ensues..)

It's definitely not true that everyone things that 3rd edition was the worst edition of the game.

I don't think I have outright labelled it as such, some may have been more vehement sure. If I look back and reconfirm my own feelings;
Shas'El Tael said : If anything, it's more apparent there's agreement over the jarring third edition brought about when it landed. [i]

The ruleset was quite a change for established players, so no brownie cookie for why some thought the doom was nigh! chuckle. I've played all system since, had some fun moments too.. but for myself personally, the experience lacks that detail and I have felt, there was a general increase in oddball rules (Which I completely understand in terms of trying to get a huge army system running).

As for background and Codici, well.. they were a new thing to established players from RT, but the original addendum books were rich with insane fluff and some fun/silly notions. Second edition kind of dragged it all into line a bit, more concise. 3rd edition just threw on a whole heap of depression I felt.. Grim grimness grimly forth..

Fourth was well.. continuation really, though I am unsure on the Tipping Point of 5th, with all this This Is The End Times saga..

I can't complain though, GW has put forth some interesting ideas and stories, though I have disliked their stomping over original story lines and 'facts'. I don't think it rocket science to pick up on of the original books and ensure the storyline is treated right. Abstraction for the sake of it, to create further gloom and doom, is not a wise move in my eyes. The background spoke solidly from the beginning.

I guess hand in hand with nicely detailed rules, I do like some inspiring fiction for that whole "Why we Fight" angle.

Q. How much does character in your armies matter? Have you been able to keep the theme over time through these editions?

I know I haven't, my Scythes of the Emperor faded into near memory as I felt marines were being neutered. A 'Necromunda' marine is a scary thing, on a table top not so. Hooking in the fiction of it, they didn't live up too it. In 2nd they still seemed reasonably spooky, given shooting skill, armour saves and cover came into play. On a good day I barely lost a marine in a firefight if I kept cover and did a miniature rendition of fire movement. I think the Army scale and balancing out of multiple armies, some of the grandeur of marines died I felt.

~Tael
The above post and all previous posts by this member are wholly personal observations and may not reflect the actual thoughts and feelings of fellow members and the DakkaDakka Forum Owners.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote: And through these posts I see everyone their positive bias to whatever edition they went through from start to finish in the beginning of their career.

Huh what? I've been pretty vocal about my preference for 5th ed... and I started in 2nd ed before the chaos codex was released.

Shas'El Tael wrote:Q. How much does character in your armies matter?

Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Shas'El Tael wrote:Have you been able to keep the theme over time through these editions?

Nope. I was Guardian-heavy for 2E skirmish, thanks to them basically having Rending Shuricats. In 3rd, I piloted some pretty nasty Eldar Biel-Tan / CSM Veteran lists mercilessly. It wasn't until 4th that I started actually focusing on a theme other than "this wins more", and 5th is when army theme started coming together seriously.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Except for eldar craftworlds, and ork clanz, and Chaos Legions....

I'd say the exact opposite of what you said is true. Before, there were actual armies of the above things, where as now your Saim Hann craftworld is nothing but a paintjob, and you don't have to take a single jetbike or vyper.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Care to explain that one Mr. Hwang.

How does character/theme 'matter' any more than 3rd or 4th or even 2nd? What's changed? Do more fluffy armies become more powerful? No, it's often the opposite. So please, enlighten us as to how this statement of yours isn't pure fantasy.

whitedragon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Except for eldar craftworlds, and ork clanz, and Chaos Legions....

I'd say the exact opposite of what you said is true. Before, there were actual armies of the above things, where as now your Saim Hann craftworld is nothing but a paintjob, and you don't have to take a single jetbike or vyper.

Well, the flip side to this is is that you also can have a Saim Hann craftworld list that isn't bolted into a fairly narrow conception. While not perfect, the most recent codices have allowed strong themed armies to be built, without artificial constraints and special rules.

While in the fluff Saim Hann use more jetbikes than other craftworlds, there's still no guarantee that any given 1500pts of that craftworld would be Jetbikes and Vypers. They have aspects and heavy grav tanks just like any other craftworld. What the new list allows are four (plus wraithguard) different troops choices, one for each of the big craftworlds. A Biel Tan style aspect list is now built around Dire Avengers, a Saim hann fast attack list is built around jetbikes or storm guardians in wave serpents, etc.

The ork book, if anything, is even more elegant. You can build a kult of speed, a nob heavy goff force, a Dread heavy force, a force built around deathskull lootas, etc.

The chaos book is disappointing because there are no cult armies, and I think they could have included a few choice cult units (Khorne Bikers, Nurgle Havocs, Rubric Terminators, etc), but there is a lot of flexibility in that book, even if it's not quite the flexibility many us (myself included) want.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Care to explain that one Mr. Hwang.

How does character/theme 'matter' any more than 3rd or 4th or even 2nd? What's changed? Do more fluffy armies become more powerful? No, it's often the opposite. So please, enlighten us as to how this statement of yours isn't pure fantasy.

I'm guessing from his post he meant "matters to me", not matters overall.

Although as I posted earlier, I think that while the loss of sublists hurts variety, the base codices have far more flexibility than at any time since 2nd, and given the much improved internal balance, fluffy or thematic armies actually stand more of a chance.

For example, you can take an army in 5th edition of tactical squads in rhinos and succeed, or a biel tan aspect wave and do ok, or a green horde, etc.

I can't build my all Dark Reaper army anymore. I'm pissed.

Polonius wrote:I'm guessing from his post he meant "matters to me", not matters overall.

Oh I dunno. WRONGBADFUN's pretty good at the whole "Me = everyone" thing. I wouldn't put it past him.

Polonius wrote:Although as I posted earlier, I think that while the loss of sublists hurts variety, the base codices have far more flexibility than at any time since 2nd, and given the much improved internal balance, fluffy or thematic armies actually stand more of a chance.

The problem is a lot of that is now stemming from Special Characters, a trend I despise, and we are in a situation where there is one killer build from every 'Dex and that's all. How many Changeling/Fateweaver armies showed up at Adepticon? Lash/Oblit Chaos? Biker Nob Orks? The list goes on...

How was that different to 4th edition exactly?
Daemonbomb, Nidzilla, Lasplas, Mech Eldar, every necron list...

It's not. That's the point I'm making. I don't see the difference between 4th and 5th or how suddenly army character/theme "finally matters".

D'oh. Sorry. I obviously need a cup of something caffinated.
Yes, I agree with you entirely.

whitedragon wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

Except for eldar craftworlds, and ork clanz, and Chaos Legions....

I'd say the exact opposite of what you said is true. Before, there were actual armies of the above things, where as now your Saim Hann craftworld is nothing but a paintjob, and you don't have to take a single jetbike or vyper.

Wow, it is this very kind if response to army building that makes me very happy with the 5E army approach.

I never knew Saim Hann fielded Jetbikes and Vypers in every single engagement from here to eternity and back again. I just thought Saim Hann preferred to field Jetbikes in many situations. But I guess, even in boarding actions and Apocalypse, Saim Hann manages to field nothing but Jetbikes and Vypers...

Similarly, I also never knew that other Craftworlds wouldn't field Jetbike-heavy forces from time to time, as situations warranted...

IMO, the last thing we need are straitjacketing army lists that turn armies into caricatures. Having some flexibility to play a Jetbike-heavy army is enough to make a characteristically Saim-Hann force.

In my particular case, as a primarily "skittles" Aspect-based Biel-Tan player, the current Eldar Codex doesn't quite meet my needs (Scorps / Spiders / Banshees as Troops). However, that doesn't invalidate the Eldar Codex, as you can still make well-themed armies if you choose to do so.

And the same holds with Chaos Marines. My Chaos Marines are going to have nice theme, and I don't need speshul roolz to do it. If I were playing as a Legion, the only thing that was really lost was Cultists - the rest can be themed out quite nicely, and the player has the freedom to make a good army list, without being straitjacketed into a particular list.
____

Polonius wrote:The chaos book is disappointing because there are no cult armies, and I think they could have included a few choice cult units (Khorne Bikers, Nurgle Havocs, Rubric Terminators, etc), but there is a lot of flexibility in that book, even if it's not quite the flexibility many us (myself included) want.

I'm not even sure that, historically, the specific Cult choices you list above are canonical / characteristic. But as all 3 of units you list are Markable, it's really not so terrible for anyone who wants to play as a Cult army.
____

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Fortunately, army character / theme finally matters in 5E, whereas before it was nothing more than a paintjob.

I'm guessing from his post he meant "matters to me", not matters overall.

Although as I posted earlier, I think that while the loss of sublists hurts variety, the base codices have far more flexibility than at any time since 2nd, and given the much improved internal balance, fluffy or thematic armies actually stand more of a chance.

Mostly, I was referring to 2E's red vs dark vs blue marines compared to the 5E approach that allows one make a well-themed list.

But it also ties to how I'm moving forward with army themes in my new stuff and rebuilds, to be less dependent upon quirks of the specific Codex formulation in a particular edition. For example, I'm finally gong to be moving forward with my grey marines as BA because I like the idea of Jump-heavy marines (as opposed to a 4E-style list of all Jump marines all the time). Most likely, I have bought my last SM Codex, as I don't have a need or desire to play as 10-man SM Tacticals nor Bikers. Nor Dark Angels, nor Black Templars, nor Space Wolves.

For the most part, I think the 4E Codices were / are utter crap in terms of design, concept, and execution. Pure gak design, of which the CSM book was the most egregious offender. A more soulless and unbalanced set of stereotypes couldn't have been written if GW had left the job as unfettered fanwank.

So as above, I like the 5E approach of each Codex having a clear, competitive basic concept with some amount of flexibility, variance, or options around that core. It allows for players to set a theme that is aligned with the Codex concepts. As the OP notes, it's all preference, and in this case, I appreciate and am fully on board with what Jervis & co are up to. I also appreciate that others prefer the previous Codex approaches, but that's just personal preference on their part that doesn't affect me.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Mostly, I was referring to 2E's red vs dark vs blue marines compared to the 5E approach that allows one make a well-themed list.

I'm sorry, but W-T-F'ing-F?

Marines are just like that now - generic Marines w/Special Characters, or Dark Angels or Blood Angels or Space Wolves. The only thing we have now that we didn't have then is the Black Templar Codex. There was more variety in 3rd and 4th when you could actually play different Chapters. Seriously John, where do you get off saying that the '5E approach' allows for well-themed lists? What in the holy fething hell is the '5E approach'?

Your posts are utterly mystifying sometimes John. Just amazing.