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.

The main point of this thread is in the title, but maybe I should provide context.

I recently found the 3rd Edition rulebook in a secondhand bookshop for $12, and since I only played that edition in the last months of its existence, I don't have a very good idea of what it was like.

My idea was doing a campaign in which everyone uses the army list within the rulebook, as well as the 3rd edition rules themselves. However, I have concerns regarding the relative balance between the armies within the book.

So that's my question to you, fellow Dakka-ites: How balanced were the army lists released in the 3rd edition rulebook? Balanced enough for semi-casual play? Ridiculously top-heavy favouring certain armies?

What say you?

PS: If they were imbalanced, what would you do to rebalance them, and do you think a 3rd edition campaign would work, if not, why?

My thanks.

3rd edition was the game of "marines jump out of their rhino into hand to hand combat then sweeping advance 2D6 into the next squad, rinse, repeat."

Also Eldar with invulnerable skimmers.

Not really balanced as such, but it was the first edition of "keep it simple stupid" so deserves some acknowledgement for that.

I was simple in an abstract sort of way.

It was not very well balanced and the army lists in the back lacked most of the options and extras that helped make the xenos decent.
The consolidating into a new combat was the really unbalance aspect of the game. I used to take Baharroth in my eldar list when I wanted to troll people. Guide him and he could eat a whole army by himself (he had an exarch power that let him get another attack each time he hit...yeah reroll misses and his high WS would generate ~50 hits a combat). I banned myself from using him when he steam rolled 1500 points of gunline in a single assault phase.
There was also the fact you could not target units behind other units. With tough infantry you could hide all the squishy jump infantry behind them and walk up the field...wraithguard were ridiculous when they were all you got to shoot at.

Blood Angels were evil.

Their Rhinos were fast, and they could always charge out of them. With blood rolls and overcharged engine, it was possibe to get something like a 30" charge off.

Then they hit first and harder because they all had furious charge.

Yeah, I don't miss third.

So, it's sounding like it was not fun times, I'd forgotten that consolidating into CC was a thing back then. Oh the times my boyz had...

The consolidating into a new combat was the really unbalance aspect of the game. I used to take Baharroth in my eldar list when I wanted to troll people. Guide him and he could eat a whole army by himself (he had an exarch power that let him get another attack each time he hit...yeah reroll misses and his high WS would generate ~50 hits a combat). I banned myself from using him when he steam rolled 1500 points of gunline in a single assault phase.

Good god, that's ridiculous. Luckily no one in our group plays Eldar.

PredaKhaine wrote:
Blood Angels were evil.

Their Rhinos were fast, and they could always charge out of them. With blood rolls and overcharged engine, it was possibe to get something like a 30" charge off.

Then they hit first and harder because they all had furious charge.

Yeah, I don't miss third.

BA would always get the charge on their first time. The only hope I had was going first and killing all the rhinos.

I posted a similar thread a while back, and, as in that thread, many people have missed the point.

OP isn't asking about the 3e Codexes, he's asking about the short army lists in the back of the BBB. So, there'd be no Blood Angel rhino rush (or at least, no worse than any other marines).

I hope you get some better answers, Doc. For what it's worth I remember 3e very fondly, but as soon as the 3e 'Nid 'dex hit, I always played with the codexes, not the BBB lists.

Yeah - I enjoyed third ed - it's what I learnt on, I started with the Dark Eldar, and good times were had.

I remember such amazing moments as my entire army being wiped out bar my Archon and a couple of incubi turn one, then my Archon casually strolled up the field and bitchslapped the entire marine army.

Though most games went - shooty back and forth, till Archon hit close combat (either I made it, or they reached me), then she sweeping advanced between everything until she died or won the game...

Looking back, it probably wasn't very balanced really, but oh well!

I was hoping that, since they were all written at the same time, the armies in the BBB would be balanced 'gainst one another.

No Rhino Rush can only be a good thing, and I'm glad people seem to have a positive recollection of the 3rd ed release, from what I hear it was a pretty massive shakeup of the 40k system.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
I was hoping that, since they were all written at the same time, the armies in the BBB would be balanced 'gainst one another.

No Rhino Rush can only be a good thing, and I'm glad people seem to have a positive recollection of the 3rd ed release, from what I hear it was a pretty massive shakeup of the 40k system.

Oh, there will be rhino rush, just not the ultimate BA version.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
I was hoping that, since they were all written at the same time, the armies in the BBB would be balanced 'gainst one another.

Not just 'no' but 'oh hell no!'

You've got the marine players and the rhino rush, for one thing, and IIRC, the good old las/plas combo for IG in that one is really really cheap. I really don't remember all the nitty gritty, but unless you've got everyone on board for moderating their lists so that no one takes advantage of the worst excesses, some people are probably going to end up not having a good time.

Armor 14 War Walkers.

Believe it or not. 40k wasn't anything close to balanced till 5th edition. And 6th has improved it.

As a Gurad player . . . .

1. All of my Platoons were Diffrent units that could Not combine.
2. You could not move and shoot Ordanace
3. Glancing hits could Blow up your tanks and Transports.
4. One Leman Russ or Baslisk was a Heavy support selection
5. Eaethshaker Cannon to your Leader turn one = Priceless

I remember decimating armies with my swooping hawk exarch. I think his greatest feat was killing a korne commander and squad on juggernauts. Though mostly I lost with my Eldar compared to some armies less than 20 percent of the time losing. The only thing I can say i liked about third was I was game winning machine. A phrase got such to me because I guess I used it too much and here people refer to it while referring to me, still today... "I ahniiiIIIiiilated him....."

3RD was balanced the way war machine is balance simple rules, lots of special unit and army rules.


Slaanish was disgusting, at the time while chaos on the while sucked... Sisters were unbeatable in a skilled players hands. There were people refusing to play my razorback marine army. Black templars with grey knight Allies was stupid, over used but powerful.

Rhino rush was a thing but never bothered me. The big thing was most people were still stuck on hero hammer and failed to adapt to massive army styles. Honestly most of the armies were extremely boring, though could still be effective and frankly a lot of the builds thought powerful back then are the norm now.

I think it would be more interesting to play the old editions with current codex's

Except you know, Warmachine is actually balanced. 3rd wasn't.

 firmlog wrote:
3RD was balanced the way war machine is balance simple rules, lots of special unit and army rules.


Slaanish was disgusting, at the time while chaos on the while sucked... Sisters were unbeatable in a skilled players hands. There were people refusing to play my razorback marine army. Black templars with grey knight Allies was stupid, over used but powerful.

Rhino rush was a thing but never bothered me. The big thing was most people were still stuck on hero hammer and failed to adapt to massive army styles. Honestly most of the armies were extremely boring, though could still be effective and frankly a lot of the builds thought powerful back then are the norm now.

I think it would be more interesting to play the old editions with current codex's

You're mostly talking about 3rd after codexes were released. The OP is talking about Black Book 3rd. Only army lists in the Black Book.

The 3rd ed of 40k took an over complicated skirmish game that had tons of character and detailed engaging game play(2nd ed.)
Threw out all the character and engaging game play , and turned it in to a bland dice rolling game for kids,IMO.

Yet GW still managed to completely over complicate the rules by adding back some the detail with lots of additional rules and resolution methods over the next 3 editions...

40k has never had much game balance,as '...selling toy soldiers to children.. ' does not need it apparently.
All you need it lots of 'chrome' to cover up the 'rusty out dated core rules ' and folks buy it !

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe it or not. 40k wasn't anything close to balanced till 5th edition. And 6th has improved it.

3rd was the major culprit in that, because it was such a radical departure from 2nd.

In 2nd, every army could shoot effectively, even Tyranids. What 3rd did was change the focus of the game to dramatic conflict resolution in close combat. They were trying to speed up the game by taking out the strategy elements and causing close combat to remove models at a rapid rate. Because close combat was such a game changer in 3rd, and moving and shooting was gimped so badly (12" shooting ranges, lol) it gave rise to "assault themed" armies. Some armies have spent the last ten years trying to recover, lol. The reason why so many people are crying about the "nerfs" to assault in 6th Edition is that they play armies which had shifted into that "All we know how to do is close combat" play style.

In 2nd, assault troops were specialists. They weren't ever the whole army. In 3rd, that became the whole game.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Believe it or not. 40k wasn't anything close to balanced till 5th edition. And 6th has improved it.

3rd was the major culprit in that, because it was such a radical departure from 2nd.

In 2nd, every army could shoot effectively, even Tyranids. What 3rd did was change the focus of the game to dramatic conflict resolution in close combat. They were trying to speed up the game by taking out the strategy elements and causing close combat to remove models at a rapid rate. Because close combat was such a game changer in 3rd, and moving and shooting was gimped so badly (12" shooting ranges, lol) it gave rise to "assault themed" armies. Some armies have spent the last ten years trying to recover, lol. The reason why so many people are crying about the "nerfs" to assault in 6th Edition is that they play armies which had shifted into that "All we know how to do is close combat" play style.

In 2nd, assault troops were specialists. They weren't ever the whole army. In 3rd, that became the whole game.

Ironically, what I remember of 3rd is that my marines and to a lesser extent my Impy Guard could pretty much clear the table of enemy troops by turn two through shooting alone.

But yeah when close-combat troops hit your line it was usually brutal.

Even the back of the book lists were not balanced well. This is due to who you are allowed to shoot at (some of the lists have extremely tough troops which can screen the hard hitting fragile stuff) and some of the armies are just outright better than the others in CC. These combined give certain armies (eldar) a huge advantage if used in conjunction.

I am fond of 3rd as it was the edition I started in. However you have to come to the realization that it was a kill points mission all the time unless you make custom missions and they did not even remotely attempt to balance the game at that time. One of the best parts of that edition is the eye of terror and craft world eldar dexs' which were extremely unique and flavorful army lists used to create very specific forces. They were just awesome and added a great deal of flavor to the games.

I say try it and have fun just be careful because there were broken lists that spank the lists of today like the small children they are.

3rd Edition was infinitely unfair to shooty armies. Being able to Pac-Man across a persons line with assault troops was...brutal.

Lanrak wrote:
The 3rd ed of 40k took an over complicated skirmish game that had tons of character and detailed engaging game play(2nd ed.)
Threw out all the character and engaging game play , and turned it in to a bland dice rolling game for kids,IMO.

Yet GW still managed to completely over complicate the rules by adding back some the detail with lots of additional rules and resolution methods over the next 3 editions...

40k has never had much game balance,as '...selling toy soldiers to children.. ' does not need it apparently.
All you need it lots of 'chrome' to cover up the 'rusty out dated core rules ' and folks buy it !

I know, right? People claim that 2nd ed was overcomplicated but the fact is that exactly what you describe has made 5th and 6th well-more complicated than 2nd ever was.

It was actually the changes in 3rd that 'forced' all my friends Out of the game, before 5th ed (accidentally) brought us back. I still believe that 2nd provides a much more tactical game than 5th/6th does.

Off topic.

I ran my Blood angels against an Ork player in a tournament, and hit his lines with assault on the first turn. When the first turn CC was over, he had 18 Orks left on the table.

Relapse wrote:
I ran my Blood angels against an Ork player in a tournament, and hit his lines with assault on the first turn. When the first turn CC was over, he had 18 Orks left on the table.

To be fair, Third edition was certainly the *Fastest* of any of the editions.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I ran my Blood angels against an Ork player in a tournament, and hit his lines with assault on the first turn. When the first turn CC was over, he had 18 Orks left on the table.

To be fair, Third edition was certainly the *Fastest* of any of the editions.

That's for sure. I never saw a smile turn into a frown as fast as that Ork player's did!

 Ovion wrote:
Yeah - I enjoyed third ed - it's what I learnt on, I started with the Dark Eldar, and good times were had.

I remember such amazing moments as my entire army being wiped out bar my Archon and a couple of incubi turn one, then my Archon casually strolled up the field and bitchslapped the entire marine army.

Though most games went - shooty back and forth, till Archon hit close combat (either I made it, or they reached me), then she sweeping advanced between everything until she died or won the game...

Looking back, it probably wasn't very balanced really, but oh well!

Ah, I remember my brother's Archon and his Talos carving bloody swathes through my SW. But, the SW could also use LR Exterminators, so I miss that.
Troops could move, shoot normally (I mean no snap shots, heavy still couldn't shoot) and assault 6". That's all changed. SM's were the big bad boys with their good shooting and strength in CC. it seemed that most Xenos armies weren't that well balanced. They would have a few amazing characters or weapons such as the DE Archon and Talos.
I'll always like 3rd edition because that's what I started on.

On another note unrelated to what you're asking, everything was way cheaper. Marine squads and Rhinos were $20-25, and SM LR's were $45.

On another note unrelated to what you're asking, everything was way cheaper. Marine squads and Rhinos were $20-25, and SM LR's were $45.

Certainly true, it's just good that all of us who will be involved have all the models we need already.

One of the best parts of that edition is the eye of terror and craft world eldar dexs' which were extremely unique and flavorful army lists used to create very specific forces. They were just awesome and added a great deal of flavor to the games.

I want to see if I can get my hands on these, as well as Codex: Armageddon (that was 3rd ed, wasn't it?) simply because I never got to experience them firsthand, either playing with them or against them. Hell, I might add them into the campaign if they can be included effectively.

One should keep in mind that 3rd edition wasn't really intended to be a complete playable edition of 40K.

3rd was the first step in a process that ended with 5th.

I had the pleasure of speaking at length with Andy Chambers about this very issue at one of the Games Day seminars (back when the seminars were actually a chance to interact with the Games Designers, not the marketing sock-puppets of today).
I expressed my displeasure with the game having turned too generic and simple. Having just shifted from 2nd to 3rd, with its small armylist pamphlet and every weapon being "count as a Meltagun/Flamer/plasmagun" and so on", such a displeasure felt warranted.
Andy Chambers told that the Games Designers had realized that 2nd had grown too big, slow and complicated, and that they felt that it would require more than just some tweaks to get the game to the stage that they wanted.
So they had purposefully and deliberately "cut all the meat from the bone" to get to the very core of the game. This included invalidating the previous codexes as the game completely changed its rules and necessitated the Armylist pamphlet.
While this meant that 3rd would seem somewhat simple, it would allow the game to slowly be built into the game they really wanted.

While I never spoke with Andy again I, to this day, feel that 4th was the next step with the addition of some more complicated rules and that 5th (after having run the Trial Assault Rules test) was the final tweak that placed the game where they wanted it.
I see 5th as the end of that development-cycle.
6th with the changes it has introduced seem to me to be the start of a new one.

Just felt like sharing.

3rd ed balanced?
Not even close.
And when the codecies came out things got worse.
I'm of the opinion, looking at how things are going, 6th ed is going to be the most balanced once we have all the races released.