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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unless my maths is wonky? And it probably is….Banshees and Marines in 3rd Ed did similar levels of damage to each other?

160 points of Banshees charging 150 points of Tactical marines would do 30 attacks. Hit with 15, and kill 5. 5 Marines hit back, one attack each, and rounding up, cause 3 hits, 2 of which wound, and one of which is saved, for 1 dead Banshee.

Next Assault Phase, the Banshees do 18 attacks, 9 hits, 3 dead Marines. The Marines hit back, 2 attacks, 1 hit, rounding up, 1 wound. Then it's a 50/50 whether that manages to kill a Banshee or not. And the Marines are now below 50% and testing to run away.

Against Terminators, the numbers are even more favourable to the Banshees.
5 Termis, 210pts. Ten Banshees charge, 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 wounds, 210 points of Terminators dead.

So, used to do the job they meant were for, Banshees were much better than a Tactical squad in combat.


Honestly, to me it just sounds like you were a big fan of 2nd edition at the time 3rd came out. I was working retail for GW at the time, and pretty much all of the people who loved 2nd for it's highly detailed, comprehensive rules, hated 3rd. And all of the people who saw 2nd as a hot mess of unbalanced, over-complicated rules loved 3rd.
It was just such a big change that it was really divisive, and remains so to this day.

Personally, 3rd is my favourite 40k, and the only one I'll still play today. Although I play it using just the lists in the main rulebook; no Codexes.
The changes made for the '3.5' version are often seen as big improvements, and at the time they were, but they were only really needed because the Codexes had altered things so much.

If I want to relive 2nd at it's best, I play Necromunda - the detail level made much more sense at the skirmish level!

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is one of "feeling".

Sure Banshees were still good at killing Marines from a points perspective, but when the reason for that is because Banshees are cheap it kinda kills the whole "elite space elves with power swords" vibe they supposedly have.

I mean, they were still elite. They cost the same as marines, an elite army, and could beat them up nicely. They were just more niched in specifically fighting MEQ than previously and the changes to the combat system made them more susceptible to return attacks from survivors.


But I guess the "feeling" is the main issue, indeed, because now only marine players were truly intimidated by them while anyone with access to chaff infantry could waste their time and anyone with access to orks or dreadnoughs could crush them.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And you might as well not bother charging Thunder Hammer and Stormshield ones at all!

Storm shield only worked against one opponent. If a terminator is fighting two Banshees, one of them gets to bypass it.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is one of "feeling".

Sure Banshees were still good at killing Marines from a points perspective, but when the reason for that is because Banshees are cheap it kinda kills the whole "elite space elves with power swords" vibe they supposedly have.

But they were cheap in 2nd - they cost less than marines rather than more.


As far as feeling goes 3e banshees were merely much better than marines rather than ploughing over them like unarmed grots as the 2e banshees did. And that's definitely a 2e thing - wiping out half an army with a stratagem or blowing 24" wide hole into the middle of the board was a thing, and factions could be 'thematic' such as the old necrons (the sisters Sanctuary 101 background is based on a battle report where their whole gunline was good for about one necron casualty per shooting phase).

And there was a lot of stuff with slight nuances or perks which were fun but also utterly immaterial to the game - the chainswords used by marines for example were functionally identical to regular swords save that there was a very marginal chance of being able to damage the tracks of a light vehicle with them (and launch it half way across the board with enough 6s).

3e took away most of the superfluous elements, then started bringing them back again with 3.5, then started taken them away again in 4th, then started bringing them back again in 5th... then went mad in 6th and before long you were getting back to the 2e style of massive overkill, pointless minutiae, and staggering faction imbalance which just didn't seem as popular the second time around.

Maybe I’m just being stubborn, but Banshees still sucked in 3rd Ed. They used to be a real terror. With some exceptions (Dreadnoughts and Vehickex, really tough Monsters like Carnifex), a squad of them could just…delete entire units. But because their entire defence was offence, they were far from impossible to deal with.

Then came 3rd. Where they gained nothing in protection, became slower on foot, and hit nowhere near as hard against anything.

But the same is broadly true of everyone else’s Special Sauce Killers.

Look at the Space Marine Dreadnought.

In 2nd Ed, even its weapons, even the stormbolter, were superior examples. The Lascannons could modify their hit location roll on tanks, making it more likely to hit something useful. Anything using Sustained Fire ignored the first jam (hence the Stormbolter was a superior example). The Multi-Melta could fire as a Heavy Flamer too, making it excellent for close assaults. Even the Powerfist could do its rotateyrippy thing on vehicles doing horrendous damage.

3rd Ed? Av12 was nothing to write home about. It’s WS/BS was nothing to write home about. Its weapons were nothing to write home about. It was good in combat, because it hit hard at no loss of Initiative, and so could punch tanks and characters to death quite happily. But it lacked the volume of attacks to effectively deal with infantry, even though they generally couldn’t do any damage in return. This meant I could charge it with a more or less disposable unit and keep it tied up for a turn or two on wasteful opponents. Monstrous Creatures would usually smash a Dreadnought, even if they didn’t emerge entirely unscathed.

I've taken two breaks from 40K (a year or so of not playing g).

The first was the release of 3rd edition. It felt very stripped down. I didn't come around until the Trial Vehicle and Assault rules were released.



The other time was late 7th as gameplay with allies and formations was simply awful.

Rosebuddy wrote:
I mean, they were still elite. They cost the same as marines, an elite army, and could beat them up nicely. They were just more niched in specifically fighting MEQ than previously and the changes to the combat system made them more susceptible to return attacks from survivors.

But I guess the "feeling" is the main issue, indeed, because now only marine players were truly intimidated by them while anyone with access to chaff infantry could waste their time and anyone with access to orks or dreadnoughs could crush them.

The simplification of 3rd created a series of very niche units surrounded by "meat shields."

The all or nothing nature of AP meant the death knell of multipurpose weapons and squads. Howling Banshees were specialized assault troops, but one could employ them as a maneuver element to seize terrain because they moved so quickly. Deleting the movement stat destroyed one of the easy yet effective ways to differentiate among the various troops.

Among all their nifty toys, Eldar could run fast enough to get a -1 to hit, which was very useful in avoiding incoming fire, especially from units on overwatch. The replacement of that with special rules completely undermined the goal of simplifying the system.

 Lovejoy wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Unless my maths is wonky? And it probably is….Banshees and Marines in 3rd Ed did similar levels of damage to each other?

160 points of Banshees charging 150 points of Tactical marines would do 30 attacks. Hit with 15, and kill 5. 5 Marines hit back, one attack each, and rounding up, cause 3 hits, 2 of which wound, and one of which is saved, for 1 dead Banshee.

Next Assault Phase, the Banshees do 18 attacks, 9 hits, 3 dead Marines. The Marines hit back, 2 attacks, 1 hit, rounding up, 1 wound. Then it's a 50/50 whether that manages to kill a Banshee or not. And the Marines are now below 50% and testing to run away.

Against Terminators, the numbers are even more favourable to the Banshees.
5 Termis, 210pts. Ten Banshees charge, 30 attacks, 15 hits, 5 wounds, 210 points of Terminators dead.

So, used to do the job they meant were for, Banshees were much better than a Tactical squad in combat.


Honestly, to me it just sounds like you were a big fan of 2nd edition at the time 3rd came out. I was working retail for GW at the time, and pretty much all of the people who loved 2nd for it's highly detailed, comprehensive rules, hated 3rd. And all of the people who saw 2nd as a hot mess of unbalanced, over-complicated rules loved 3rd.
It was just such a big change that it was really divisive, and remains so to this day.

Personally, 3rd is my favourite 40k, and the only one I'll still play today. Although I play it using just the lists in the main rulebook; no Codexes.
The changes made for the '3.5' version are often seen as big improvements, and at the time they were, but they were only really needed because the Codexes had altered things so much.

If I want to relive 2nd at it's best, I play Necromunda - the detail level made much more sense at the skirmish level!

Everything you've posted is correct, but since this is a sledging thread you're not really going to get much back up on it. I'm personally not here to constantly state that third edition is my super special bestest despite the fact that that's how I feel. I'm only here to correct any massive interpretations of the rules, and I'm also. quite shocked that nobody has tried to say something about consolidating 2D6" into another combat.

 Tyran wrote:
The issue is one of "feeling".

Sure Banshees were still good at killing Marines from a points perspective, but when the reason for that is because Banshees are cheap it kinda kills the whole "elite space elves with power swords" vibe they supposedly have.

I’m not just talking about points though; I admitted that tacticals were the ‘worst’ marine unit for banshees to fight on a ppm base. Banshees didn’t just kill marines; they killed damn near everything. It’s been awhile since I played third but IIRC they were best-in-class when it came to murderizing single wound / high save infantry. Guard, marines, DE, orks, crons, no one wanted to get charged by a unit of banshees because they’d blend everything which wasn’t intentionally designed to counter them (big fearless blobs and monsters, basically). Banshees even countered banshees due to their masks. In fact I think the only real competitor to banshees were genestealers, as they were fast, strong, and lethal; meaning that they had a wicked counter punch or charged and not wiped out, or would do serious damage if they got the drop (though would still suffer not insignificant losses).

I’m big into feeling in games of all stripes; it’s what makes them worth playing over one another, I get it. But a unit that utterly feths anything it touches with no recourse or harm taken other than ‘never let it do anything’ is straight up toxic design. So if that’s the feeling you’re selling, I’m not buying.

I loved 2d6 consolidation! (I played Orks, so...) it felt like over running in WFB, and I liked that mechanic too. It made layered defense a sensible strategy.

 Da Boss wrote:
I loved 2d6 consolidation! (I played Orks, so...) it felt like over running in WFB, and I liked that mechanic too. It made layered defense a sensible strategy.

I think it was probably better than the 4th edition version despite the average of 7" vs 3", because you could still shoot at the unit that advanced into contact in 3rd. Unless it did it at the end of your turn.

The change to sweeping advances catching units based on Initiative also really hurt some armies compared to others. Necrons especially as it countered IWBB and they were only I2.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Then came 3rd. Where they gained nothing in protection, became slower on foot, and hit nowhere near as hard against anything

3e banshees had longer charge ranges and were harder to kill with bolter fire than 2e banshees.

2e banshee close combat under 3e rules would be attacks first, strength 5 hits, and reduces opponents WS to 1 (if not less). That's an 8th edition pokemon-carded deathstar not a 16pt 3e model and needs the rest of the edition to be similarly skewed all over the place... which again is 2nd edition to a tee with its extra-large blast krak missile salvos and deepstriking vortex grenades but it's nothing remotely balanced as a game of skill.

Oh, I got one. If I remember correctly.

Dreadnaughts could just leave close combat on their turn and turn around and charge back in during the assault phase. Unless of course we'd played it wrong or it had been faq'd away. Can't remember.
I believer I remember Vehicles could leave combat but the question is what about walkers, am I misremembering.

 warhead01 wrote:
I believer I remember Vehicles could leave combat but the question is what about walkers, am I misremembering.

They couldn't. It was one of the problems with early oldhammer that units who were tied up often had no way to disengage short of losing combat (and often getting wiped out).

The 3e witch hunters actually used it as a strength as their 'stubborn' ability was wargear on their squad leader so you had some limited control over when you were tarpitting and when you were trying to get wiped out (sisters never won combat unless they were fighting grots but they could drag it out).

 Haighus wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I loved 2d6 consolidation! (I played Orks, so...) it felt like over running in WFB, and I liked that mechanic too. It made layered defense a sensible strategy.

I think it was probably better than the 4th edition version despite the average of 7" vs 3", because you could still shoot at the unit that advanced into contact in 3rd. Unless it did it at the end of your turn.

The change to sweeping advances catching units based on Initiative also really hurt some armies compared to others. Necrons especially as it countered IWBB and they were only I2.

2D6” overrun thing didn’t bother me, as typically it was an on the charge acceleration, or if you broke the enemy unit.

What annoyed me was Consolidate. This was where you’d perhaps annihilated a unit entirely, and got I wanna say 3” in 3rd, which you could use to engage a new unit, albeit to the best of my proven wonky by this very thread memory, didn’t properly counter as charging.

Later editions prevented Consolidating into combat though. You had to overrun.

Rosebuddy wrote:


I don't know much about Warp Spiders. They had one of the odder weapons in the game but being able to teleport 12" and then toss an S6 shot into something must've had some sort of use. I don't remember them being widely recommended or cautioned against but I never paid much attention to Eldar-only discussions. Looking at the codex, that mobility and kind of gun with a 3+ save for 22 points must've been pretty okay at something.
.

I think they were intended to take out isolated units or harass large blobs of chaff. Their warp packs meant they usually got the charge, and they could be upgraded to have +2 attacks on the charge and have largely safe fall backs from combat. So a fully upgraded unit could put out 11 S6 shots, charge in at a favourable angle with 27 attacks and 5 power weapon attacks, take return attacks fairly well on a 3+, and then fall back and do it again if the enemy didn't/couldn't fail morale.

As mentioned, assault in 3rd only gave full attacks and weapon bonuses to models in base contact, and a single attack out to 2" (without bonuses from weapons like power fists). So I think Warp Spiders were intended to hit the flanks of a big mob where they can clear some space and only suffer a bit of return attacks, then fall back out of harm before the mob could properly get to grips with them. Would require quite a lot of finesse to use well though.

 Da Boss wrote:
I loved 2d6 consolidation! (I played Orks, so...) it felt like over running in WFB, and I liked that mechanic too. It made layered defense a sensible strategy.

I am so very sorry that you got pulled into this as it was kind of bait.

Sweeping Advance was 2D6" while consolidation was 3" to get your unit back into coherency. A common complaint about third edition was misconstruing the two mechanics as the entire army could fire upon someone who made it to a new unit through Sweeping Advance yet could not fire upon someone who consolidated into combat. 2 seconds of tactical forethought while deploying eliminated one of those while the threat of having your assaulting force completely decimated before they could swing an attack handled the other.

Haha no worries.
Yeah, I should have remembered, I was just re-reading the rules the other night based on this thread.

I still liked it though - it gave a great sense of momentum to combat.

 Da Boss wrote:
Haha no worries.
Yeah, I should have remembered, I was just re-reading the rules the other night based on this thread.

I still liked it though - it gave a great sense of momentum to combat.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, and I thought the entire Locked mechanic from fourth edition absolutely destroyed the combat phase.

I was looking at the codex releases per edition the other day, and 3e is a real winner there.

In 1e there weren't really codex books the same as later. So starting in 2e:
13 Books total
5 Imperial (3 Marines)
1 Chaos
3 Xenos
1 Mini-Codex (assassins)
Squats did not get a codex, and neither did Necrons despite being released in 2e.
3 Supplements (I don't know much about these apart from Dark Millennium tbh!)

3e
24 books
4 of these are reprints or updates, and from here I'll only count each of these as one book, because I'm interested in the faction coverage. (Chaos, Dark Eldar, Dark Angels and Imperial Guard)
9 Imperial (4 Marines)
1 Chaos
7 Xenos
3 Supplements, 2 of which came with a lot of additional army lists for various factions.

This edition, several new factions are introduced, and every faction gets a codex. As well as that, Chapter Approved had more lists for things like Kroot Mercenaries.

4e (where my big issue is)
13 books total, if you include the White Dwarf Codex for Blood Angels.
5 Imperial (4 Marines)
2 Chaos
4 Xenos (but the Ork codex was released at the very end of the edition)
2 Supplements, with no additional army lists.

This meant that Necrons, Daemonhunters, Witchhunters, Imperial Guard (!), Space Wolves and Dark Eldar got no new codex in this edition, and Orks spent almost the entire edition with no new book. This was really crappy imo, and soured me heavily on the edition. They expanded the game a bit with the Daemons book, along with the Black Templars moving from a Supplement book to a full codex, but it was really rough for people playing the neglected factions.

5e
9 Books (!) if you count the white dwarf codex for Sisters of Battle
6(!) Imperial (4 Marines)
3 Xenos
0 Chaos (never realised that before!)

Wow, I had forgotten how terrible 5e was for codex releases. It's not like it was a short edition either!

I'll stop here, but if you were into your forces getting actual books with rules so you could play them, 3e was a great edition.

In 6th it was back to 14, but no ork codex again this edition, then in 7th they went nuts with digital supplements and so on.

2e represented a contraction in the game (deletion of Squats as well as other Rogue Trader stuff), whereas 3e was an expansion, and everyone got to have rules.
4e, while having good core rules, really didn't bother updating most factions, and 5e worsened the trend because the factions 5e did update were generally really overpowered.

Anyway. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. To me, this sort of stuff had a big impact on my enjoyment of various editions, and is part of why I remember 3e more fondly than 4e, despite liking some of the rules in 4e a bit more.

GW seem to have their act together nowadays, but back then they were really unprofessional in how they approached their update schedule.

 Da Boss wrote:
I was looking at the codex releases per edition the other day, and 3e is a real

I don't define needing twice as many books to play the same game as "winning." If anyone was winning, it was GW.

And the fact that 3rd was a deliberate relaunch of what should have been a mature design and still managed to screw up four books so badly that they required extensive edits is a further strike against them.

I will also note that while 2nd did not have quantity of codicies, it certaintly had quality of them. I even created a "Chaos mix" for when I perused its pages, soaking up the background. With 3rd you got an army list with vignettes, nothing like the detailed breakdown - including tactical advice - you got in 2nd.

And the market has borne that out. By 2011, 3rd ed. books had zero market value. I guess they are recovering, so you can buy that at their MSRP from 1998, but 2nd ones in the same condition go for much more.

Dark Millenium was a boxed set, introducing a bunch more wargear and psychic power cards. And I *think* new Datafaxes, but don’t quote me on that.

The only other non-codex expansion I can think of would be Warhammer 40,000 Battles, which if not a White Dwarf Presents volume, was definitely a compilation of WD published articles.

I genuinely can’t think what the third book in that group would be?

I dunno, I reckon the Tau, Necron and Dark Eldar players are pretty happy they got their books.

You don't need to own all the books, only the ones for your army. So I reject that as an argument tbh - these books were cheaper than the 2e books as well, so for the average player it was less expensive.

I think the expansion to include those armies was a real improvement to the game, I think Eldar should have been Dark Eldar all along anyway.

2e promised me a Squat codex and then never delivered.

Edit to add, and be fair: 2e codexes were amazing, I loved them. So much background, so many variant armies, lovely colour sections. The 2e Chaos Codex is a brilliant book. they were worth the money. 3e, especially the earlier ones, are much lighter and I wasn't a huge fan of the "Default Imperial Perspective" thing they tried out in it.

Mad Dok: My list says Storm of Vengeance, looks like a Dark Angels campaign book of some sort? Never came across it, personally!

Cheaper because they’d been gutted.

Compare Codex Ultramarines and its content to Codex Space Marines and its content, and tell me with a straight face the saving was worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also Storm of Vengeance does compute, but that was a campaign boxed set that came with new scenery (Necromunda plastic frame bulkhead things and cardboard)

So like Dark Millenium, in terms of added value was so much more than a book.

Fair enough, but I'm still sore over my Squat codex! I called the Mail Order guys to try and order one, it was an awkward conversation! They said there'd be more in Codex Squats in the starter, the lying bastards!

I think the fact that everyone got a book in 3e is important, and editions that don't manage that are worse for it.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I was looking at the codex releases per edition the other day, and 3e is a real

I don't define needing twice as many books to play the same game as "winning." If anyone was winning, it was GW.

And the fact that 3rd was a deliberate relaunch of what should have been a mature design and still managed to screw up four books so badly that they required extensive edits is a further strike against them.

I will also note that while 2nd did not have quantity of codicies, it certaintly had quality of them. I even created a "Chaos mix" for when I perused its pages, soaking up the background. With 3rd you got an army list with vignettes, nothing like the detailed breakdown - including tactical advice - you got in 2nd.

And the market has borne that out. By 2011, 3rd ed. books had zero market value. I guess they are recovering, so you can buy that at their MSRP from 1998, but 2nd ones in the same condition go for much more.

Oh, yeah? Try looking up prices now. I'm in the process of hunting down books for 3rd edition so I could have a complete set of hard copies at my house and it is not easy, nor is it as cheap as you make it out to be anymore.

I'm also strongly moved by your desire to want to read a novel inside your codex. Some of us play the game to play the game. If I want a novel? I'll go buy a novel.

And before I forget: calling more content a bad thing is probably the hottest take I've gotten in this thread. And if your argument is for book streamlining? Every army except the Tau, which was introduced that edition, and the Necrons, which were given rules in White Dwarf, were all included inside the main rule book. Every anti-3rd argument thus far has had a pro-3rd counter argument with the exception of "making my own movie role playing during a table top war game," which you are more than welcome to have. They even made Inquisitor so the second edition people who love that stuff could get back to it. How did that wind up doing, anyway?

 Da Boss wrote:
You don't need to own all the books, only the ones for your army. So I reject that as an argument tbh - these books were cheaper than the 2e books as well, so for the average player it was less expensive.

I disagree - a big part of the game is knowing what you are up against and because GW specialized in weird rules, you needed to be able to know them or someone was going to say "Yep, it's in the book, I win!" and what are you going to do? Demand they hand their copy over?

Serious players collected all the books because that was how you learned not just the game, but the lore behind them. While I didn't care for the Tau, it would be madness to just be blissfully ignorant of their background and rules, which meant buying the book.

2e promised me a Squat codex and then never delivered.

GW's catalog of broken promises are spread out over many editions, not just 2nd.

Mad Dok: My list says Storm of Vengeance, looks like a Dark Angels campaign book of some sort? Never came across it, personally!

Yeah, it's a scenario pack. GW was into those things for both 40k and fantasy. I have it and also the rare Codex: Battles, which is a bound WD compilation of battle reports and rules for the Battle Bunker, Adeptes Arbities and the Razorback. Cool nostalgia trip.

I want to also go on record by saying that having Codex Ultramarines establishing that every empty headed player looked at my Crimson Fists and called them Ultramarines pissed me off to no end.

 Da Boss wrote:
Fair enough, but I'm still sore over my Squat codex! I called the Mail Order guys to try and order one, it was an awkward conversation! They said there'd be more in Codex Squats in the starter, the lying bastards!

I think the fact that everyone got a book in 3e is important, and editions that don't manage that are worse for it.

Sisters of Battle didn’t! Not properly.

Even then I think that was into 4th Ed?

 Da Boss wrote:
Fair enough, but I'm still sore over my Squat codex! I called the Mail Order guys to try and order one, it was an awkward conversation! They said there'd be more in Codex Squats in the starter, the lying bastards!

.

Leads me to ask, what about playing them from the Black Codex in 2nd ? I saw Imperial Guard being played from that book even after the codex was already out.

Would a codex have been an improvement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Fair enough, but I'm still sore over my Squat codex! I called the Mail Order guys to try and order one, it was an awkward conversation! They said there'd be more in Codex Squats in the starter, the lying bastards!

I think the fact that everyone got a book in 3e is important, and editions that don't manage that are worse for it.

Sisters of Battle didn’t! Not properly.

Even then I think that was into 4th Ed?

The guy playing the sisters of Battle from Chapter Approved where I was at the time was always winning. So much cheese.