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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ahh, none of that really tells me what the difference between the first and second release is . . .

It added special issue wargear, vehicle upgrades, and extra Wych rules.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
That reminds me that I still need to chase down the Dark Eldar revised codex for 3th edition

What was revised for that one? Is it the same content that's in the Chapter Approved?

There were a few other corrected data points, but that was the most important part. I wish they had stuck with the early beta fix where Hellions came with Punishers...

Dark angels VS Space wolves grudge match-

Our crimson fist player wanted to give the Logan Grimnar/wolf guard themed list army a go from the 5th ed codex.

I based my army on the 3rd ed Dark angels codex.

I do not remember all that he had as there were wolf guard all over the place. in drop pods, in land raiders, in terminator armor etc...
he did have a redeemer and phobos pattern land raider, the stormfang gunship and a long fang pack.

My force was a combination of the chapter

Azrael w/deathwing terminator command squad
In his personal land raider prometheus- Angelis Imperator

X2 power sword/plasma pistol, plasma gun, plasma cannon tactical squads
.w/las/plas razorbacks

X2 venerable deathwing dreadnoughts with plasma cannons.

.ravenwing land speeder tempest

.land raider ares



the table






There were 5 objectives, with a 12" deployment.

The wolves seized the initiative. and went to work dismantling the land raider ares.....something about it made them afraid.

surprisingly during the entire game i only managed to overheat/kill one space marine by my own plasma.



The plasma cannons did help when dealing with one of his terminator squad. the other got dealt with my Azreals command squad.

By games end objective wise it was a win for the Dark angels on turn 5 that turned into a draw on turn 6. the wolves won on tie breakers-slay the warlord (azrael failed a 2+ save against a KRAK missles) and first blood.

there was quite a bit of carnage.

Space wolves losses-mostly wolf guard units-
.2 terminator squads,
.tac squad
.drop pod,
.land raider phobos,


Dark angels losses-
.land raider ares
.venerable dreadnought
.tactical squad
.razorback

A very fun battle overall. he is already working on new lists for the wolves and blood angels to test out.

@y'all: Cool, thanks! That's quite a difference!

Following the link H.B.M.C. provided I see that it's published in 2003. I have the Chapter Approved 2004, which has four pages dedicated to Codex Eldar updates, so I'm going to assume what I have is complete.

. . .
One can knock on 3rd ed all they like, but the Chapter Approved books from that era were totally awesome. New units, adjusted points, new wargear, new armies, Q&A, trial rules. . . It was a good time.

And oh yeah, one of them has an ad for the Codexes and supplements. US$14.99 a Codex, and Supplements US$9.99. What a time to be alive!

 Insectum7 wrote:
@y'all: Cool, thanks! That's quite a difference!
. . .
One can knock on 3rd ed all they like, but the Chapter Approved books from that era were totally awesome. New units, adjusted points, new wargear, new armies, Q&A, trial rules. . . It was a good time.

And oh yeah, one of them has an ad for the Codexes and supplements. US$14.99 a Codex, and Supplements US$9.99. What a time to be alive!

That's why I will knock them - when I buy a rule book, I don't feel I should pay for the corrections. Both with 40k and WHFB, GW was essentially making people pay them for more playable lists that should have been available on the first try. The rule book and codex soon required several volumes of updates. I think there were two large WHFB supplements that you had to carry besides the rule book and the army book in order to play.

Given GW's resources, ability to playtest and crowdsource, that was just terrible customer service, but it did make them a lot of money, which is nice.

That's why I like 2nd ed. All the rules are there, you don't have worry about units being wrecked, and at this point, all the known bugs have been worked out.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

That's why I will knock them - when I buy a rule book, I don't feel I should pay for the corrections. Both with 40k and WHFB, GW was essentially making people pay them for more playable lists that should have been available on the first try. The rule book and codex soon required several volumes of updates. I think there were two large WHFB supplements that you had to carry besides the rule book and the army book in order to play.

None of the Chapter Approved nor Warhammer Chronicles books were required for play unless you were playing things from those books. Chapter Approved back then didn't just mean "FAQs and Errata" like it does today, it meant optional and additional rules and ways to play designed by GW. Chapter Approved was Armageddon Ork Hunters, Cursed Founding Chapters, Kroot Mercenaries, etc. The WHFB supplements were Dogs of War, the trial Wood Elves list before they had their book that entirely redefined how the faction looked and played, new scenarios, and an entire book on Campaigns.

I was playing in events and tourneys back then and never once needed to own or bring any of those books during 3rd.

 Platuan4th wrote:


None of the Chapter Approved nor Warhammer Chronicles books were required for play unless you were playing things from those books. Chapter Approved back then didn't just mean "FAQs and Errata" like it does today, it meant optional and additional rules and ways to play designed by GW. Chapter Approved was Armageddon Ork Hunters, Cursed Founding Chapters, Kroot Mercenaries, etc. The WHFB supplements were Dogs of War, the trial Wood Elves list before they had their book that entirely redefined how the faction looked and played, new scenarios, and an entire book on Campaigns.

I was playing in events and tourneys back then and never once needed to own or bring any of those books during 3rd.

On the Fantasy side of the house, the books were necessary because of various clarifications and such. If I didn't need 'em, I wouldn't have brung 'em.

On the 40k side, there were also "quality control" issues with the various codices, hence the editions with an edition.

May have been a regional thing. I never saw them used beyond certain army lists all through the gulf south.

 Platuan4th wrote:
May have been a regional thing. I never saw them used beyond certain army lists all through the gulf south.

Yeah, in terms of 40k, it was not much of an issue. In those days I played Vanilla Marines and never bothered with anything other than my codex and book.

It was kind of funny watching a bunch of folks add red paint to their marines to capitalize on the Blood Angels super power, only to go monochrome when the Black Templar lists was released.

I was speaking on the Fantasy side of the aisle, which of course is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@y'all: Cool, thanks! That's quite a difference!
. . .
One can knock on 3rd ed all they like, but the Chapter Approved books from that era were totally awesome. New units, adjusted points, new wargear, new armies, Q&A, trial rules. . . It was a good time.

And oh yeah, one of them has an ad for the Codexes and supplements. US$14.99 a Codex, and Supplements US$9.99. What a time to be alive!

That's why I will knock them - when I buy a rule book, I don't feel I should pay for the corrections. Both with 40k and WHFB, GW was essentially making people pay them for more playable lists that should have been available on the first try. The rule book and codex soon required several volumes of updates. I think there were two large WHFB supplements that you had to carry besides the rule book and the army book in order to play.

Given GW's resources, ability to playtest and crowdsource, that was just terrible customer service, but it did make them a lot of money, which is nice.

That's why I like 2nd ed. All the rules are there, you don't have worry about units being wrecked, and at this point, all the known bugs have been worked out.

There were many additions and corrections for 2nd ed too. Multiple WD issues with clarifications and answered questions, added options etc. When I went to tournaments I definitely brought several post BRB and Codex publications with me. There was a particular big FAQ one, the Attack Bike release which had specialized wargear, and possibly the issue with custom Chapter Masters and individual Combat Squads.

 Insectum7 wrote:
There were many additions and corrections for 2nd ed too. Multiple WD issues with clarifications and answered questions, added options etc. When I went to tournaments I definitely brought several post BRB and Codex publications with me. There was a particular big FAQ one, the Attack Bike release which had specialized wargear, and possibly the issue with custom Chapter Masters and individual Combat Squads.

There is no question that 2nd edition was a work in progress. GW had a surprise hit in Rogue Trader and was trying to rationalize it's new hot property.

For many of us, the advent of 3rd ed. was a profound disappointment. We expected it to be the long-awaited clarification/rationalization of scattershot rules.

And let there be no doubt, a full revision was needed, with updated codicies and streamlined rules that eliminated the tension between the super-detailed Rogue Trader and the larger battles that 2nd ed. could clearly support. Who wants to roll scatter for every jump pack trooper?!

My point is that the passage of 20 years has allowed 2nd ed. to solidify into a stable rules set, with generally agreed-upon conventions.

On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, "consensus" is easier when its no longer supported and rarely played outside of niche groups.

 Insectum7 wrote:
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, "consensus" is easier when its no longer supported and rarely played outside of niche groups.

When Portent was still a thing, there was a thread on the 'fixes' people used in 2nd.

Spoiler alert: there was an overwhelming agreement on what should have been done. It was wild. It was one of those threads that was boring because everyone kept saying "yeah, that's what my group is doing, too."

In the years since then, I've found a striking conformity on what people wanted. They loved the core rules, appreciated mechanics like Overwatch, found psykers distracting and generally agreed that a simplification/rationalization was needed to reduce needless and fiddly mechanics (roll for plasma ball expansion every turn? No thanks.)

This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect, btw. You'd expect much more "consensus" in a fully supported game because the publisher is basically there to create it.

Spoiler alert: there was an overwhelming agreement on what should have been done. It was wild. It was one of those threads that was boring because everyone kept saying "yeah, that's what my group is doing, too."

You're talking about gamers understanding basic game design. it is not a surprise that they all come to the same basic place. it is no different between my group and Mezmorki's pro-hammer project to fix 3rd-7th edition for a unified rule set. many of the fixes we came up with are mostly the same.

 aphyon wrote:

Spoiler alert: there was an overwhelming agreement on what should have been done. It was wild. It was one of those threads that was boring because everyone kept saying "yeah, that's what my group is doing, too."

You're talking about gamers understanding basic game design. it is not a surprise that they all come to the same basic place. it is no different between my group and Mezmorki's pro-hammer project to fix 3rd-7th edition for a unified rule set. many of the fixes we came up with are mostly the same.

Given the contentious (and often acrimonious) debates over various GW games, it was surprising to see the level of agreement.

On the other hand, the people in question were clearly drawn not just to GWs latest offering, but to a particular style of game play.

I don't think there's any question that the tactics and flow of 2nd ed. stands apart from what came before or after. Rogue Trader was a work in progress, and 2nd ed. was realization of that work. The Warhammer world was being translated into space and serious thought was finally being applied to how to visualize that form of combat. The answer was: firepower. Lots of firepower. Terrain-dense battlefields were necessary to keep things from becoming the Western Desert in 1942.

At the same time, mechanics were created to allow brutal close combats, and this was the core tension of that system.

The split - such as it was - was between those who found 2nd too fiddly and (if I may be blunt) tactically demanding. If you're going to close to melee range in an age of plasma cannon and heavy flamers, it's going to take some finesse.

What 3rd ed. did was simplify things, but it also created an instability that (as far as I know) persists to this day. Should armies be able to blast their opponents off the tabletop or slam into them and cut them to pieces with chainswords?

I think 2nd ed. found that sweet spot - firepower had the edge, but with some skill, you could get within "the wire" and rip the gun line to pieces. That was what made it fun.

Okay, that and turrets blowing off tanks and landing on the army commander.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, "consensus" is easier when its no longer supported and rarely played outside of niche groups.

When Portent was still a thing, there was a thread on the 'fixes' people used in 2nd.

Spoiler alert: there was an overwhelming agreement on what should have been done. It was wild. It was one of those threads that was boring because everyone kept saying "yeah, that's what my group is doing, too."

In the years since then, I've found a striking conformity on what people wanted. They loved the core rules, appreciated mechanics like Overwatch, found psykers distracting and generally agreed that a simplification/rationalization was needed to reduce needless and fiddly mechanics (roll for plasma ball expansion every turn? No thanks.)

This is exactly the opposite of what one would expect, btw. You'd expect much more "consensus" in a fully supported game because the publisher is basically there to create it.

Hard disagree on Plasma Plama and it's effects played a major role in my toolkit back in the day.

Edit: As was setting exarchs on fire, which I also read had been removed.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Hard disagree on Plasma Plama and it's effects played a major role in my toolkit back in the day.

Same here. When those were the official rules, plasma balls as 'created terrain' were a neat thing to use.

However, what 3rd ed. did was create a faster, leaner system, and that caused a lot of players of 2nd ed. to think: "yeah, if we cut out some of these fiddly details, we'd have the best of both worlds."

It's a tradeoff, right? Do you want to start every turn rolling for models still on fire, plasma ball expansion, or just get on with the game? The less fiddly details, the bigger the forces you can use, which is always more fun.

A month ago I met a guy who happened to be into 2nd (in my Guard unit of all places; small world). And we got to chatting and what do you know, we were nodding rapidly on all the things that our gaming groups were doing. Weird how this guy I never met had somehow come to similar conclusions about a game that's been out of print since 1998.

I do think there is a 40k sweet spot that borrows from each paradigm (2nd, 3rd, 8th), but I disagree that if the community became as large as 40Ks is today, that you'd find a consensus. I think the main reason for similar thoughts about 2nd are that the major sticking points are pretty glaring. The CC phase being one of the most obvious problems.

But take today's playerbase and plop them in 2nd? You'd probably get a riot about Marines having only 1 W and Lasguns leaving them with a 4+ save after their -1 mod. And after that everyone would be gnashing their teeth about OP Eldar, Wolf Guard and Ork Pulsa Rokkits. There's a lot to love about 2nd ed, but it needs to be played with care if you want a good game out of it. There are many ways to break it even with revised rules.

Guard unit? I retired from the Indiana National Guard back in January 2021 after 23 years of service. VERY small world...



I know it's been addressed but I want to reiterate that 2nd was not nearly as amendment free as you make it sound. It took almost as much fan patching as AOS 1.0 and was flat out replaced when GW had the chance to simply amend it.

3rd had supplements, yes, but what errata you needed could be printed off their website, cut out, and glued into your codex. Same for 6th WFB. I didn't need to drag out everything just to play the game, only what was pertinent.

 Just Tony wrote:
Guard unit? I retired from the Indiana National Guard back in January 2021 after 23 years of service. VERY small world...

If you were in the 38th ID, we were in the same outfit for a few months. Then I got a brain and switched to the Air side.

I know it's been addressed but I want to reiterate that 2nd was not nearly as amendment free as you make it sound. It took almost as much fan patching as AOS 1.0 and was flat out replaced when GW had the chance to simply amend it.

3rd had supplements, yes, but what errata you needed could be printed off their website, cut out, and glued into your codex. Same for 6th WFB. I didn't need to drag out everything just to play the game, only what was pertinent.

I don't think I've ever claimed 2nd was not a work in progress, it very much was. That made it frustrating since major releases were not in the codex, but also gave it sense of a living thing. I expected the 1998 revision to be a cleaning up of the rules, not a major reconsideration of them.

As for today, yes, Oldhammer is a great option (whatever flavor you choose) because once you have all the books, you have all the books. That's it. No new errata, no next edition which wrecks your army, you're good for a long as you want to play.

A Co. 2-293 IN

B Co. 2-293 IN



And my point was that none of the older editions are any worse than the others as far as patches. GW never did get a game right out the chute.

As for today, yes, Oldhammer is a great option (whatever flavor you choose) because once you have all the books, you have all the books. That's it. No new errata, no next edition which wrecks your army, you're good for a long as you want to play.

That is one of the high points, you are off the rollercoaster. additionally, all the old codexes are incredibly affordable. usually averaging below $10

In addition to the main rulebooks i have amassed quite a collection of 3rd-7th edition codexes including all the 3rd ed index astartes books and chapter approved
Even if they never got any edition quite "right" i find much more enjoyment in those older codexes especially when the design team obvious had a lot more love for the universe they created.

 Just Tony wrote:
A Co. 2-293 IN

B Co. 2-293 IN

Hah, a grunt! I was supposed to be a cannon cocker, HHB, 1-119 FA

And my point was that none of the older editions are any worse than the others as far as patches. GW never did get a game right out the chute.

I think the disappointment was that 2nd was at the time seen as a "breakthrough" edition, and that by 1998, a lot of the bugs and issues had been worked out. A thorough cleanup and revision was necessary, expected and feasible.

Instead, GW embarked on what is now a system of planned obsolescence. They make a new version, don't properly playtest it, offer muddled fixes and then start the cycle over again.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
A Co. 2-293 IN

B Co. 2-293 IN

Hah, a grunt! I was supposed to be a cannon cocker, HHB, 1-119 FA

And my point was that none of the older editions are any worse than the others as far as patches. GW never did get a game right out the chute.

I think the disappointment was that 2nd was at the time seen as a "breakthrough" edition, and that by 1998, a lot of the bugs and issues had been worked out. A thorough cleanup and revision was necessary, expected and feasible.

Instead, GW embarked on what is now a system of planned obsolescence. They make a new version, don't properly playtest it, offer muddled fixes and then start the cycle over again.

At least you weren't Cav or MP...





And I'll go ahead and state that, having played 2nd, if the only 40K I could ever play again was second I'd sell everything I own in a heartbeat.

 Just Tony wrote:

At least you weren't Cav or MP...

Heh. The worst are the MPs who go into Public Affairs. Ask me how I know...

And I'll go ahead and state that, having played 2nd, if the only 40K I could ever play again was second I'd sell everything I own in a heartbeat.

Well, I felt the same way about late 3rd/early 4th. I burned out on it hard, and sold off everything but my Space Marines, mostly out of nostalgia. I still had the 2nd ed. rules and one day my nephew suggested I just play that version. Smart kid.

The nice thing about Oldhammer is you can play what you want and don't have to worry about GW wrecking your fun with the latest update.

This is likely the best place to ask, but do any of you fellow past-edition appreciators have access to the 5th faqs & errata? I play that edition mostly with my pals anymore, but we have none of the ancillary documents, only our physical books plus a few Imperial Armour pdfs.

Were you looking for something specific? as a no longer supported edition there really is no point to worrying about FAQs or erratas. i know i have a few on PDF but we never use them as we find the core rules and prefered codexes work as is. it is up to your group is you find some problem and want to "fix" it. like what we did with wound allocation shinanegans.

Did you try the Wayback Machine? We have a link to it over at www.classichammer.com that leads directly to the last 6th Ed. WFB update. If you know what date 5th wrapped up, you could probably find that on there.

aphyon wrote:Were you looking for something specific? as a no longer supported edition there really is no point to worrying about FAQs or erratas. i know i have a few on PDF but we never use them as we find the core rules and prefered codexes work as is. it is up to your group is you find some problem and want to "fix" it. like what we did with wound allocation shinanegans.

In general I'd like to know what the designers intended, since that does not always come through cleanly in the language - as I'm sure we all realize. There are only two specific notes that immediately come to mind:

1. Does the Thunderfire Cannon have Barrage in 5E? Codex says no, but all publications afterwards in the 3E-7E paradigm say yes. Perhaps the change was only made after the 5E codex, but I don't wonder.

2. How do No Retreat wounds (5E again) interact within multiple-combats? In a recent game of my Crimson Fists against my friend's Tyranids, there was an assault with two Tactical Squads vs. an Exocrine (we just use the 6E rules ported directly back) and a swarm of Genestealers. Marines did very poorly and lost combat by 8, using Combat Tactics to try and break away. Both units were caught by the Genestealers and so took 8 wounds apiece. RAW that seems to be how it works and is/was pretty nasty to be on the receiving end. The Red Book however does not do a great job making that clear, as we had to scour the Assault and Morale rules to figure that out.

Just Tony wrote:Did you try the Wayback Machine? We have a link to it over at www.classichammer.com that leads directly to the last 6th Ed. WFB update. If you know what date 5th wrapped up, you could probably find that on there.

I find the Wayback Machine bothersome to fiddle with, and as I was pretty young back and just starting to get into 40k around 2008 I doubt I would be able to track them down. That said, the Classic Hammer forum will be an asset I am sure! Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 aphyon wrote:

As for today, yes, Oldhammer is a great option (whatever flavor you choose) because once you have all the books, you have all the books. That's it. No new errata, no next edition which wrecks your army, you're good for a long as you want to play.

That is one of the high points, you are off the rollercoaster. additionally, all the old codexes are incredibly affordable. usually averaging below $10

In addition to the main rulebooks i have amassed quite a collection of 3rd-7th edition codexes including all the 3rd ed index astartes books and chapter approved
Even if they never got any edition quite "right" i find much more enjoyment in those older codexes especially when the design team obvious had a lot more love for the universe they created.

Just consider the art itself in the codexes. I guess they used photos of minis when 6th came around.