Feth it, who's up for third?

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.

**Nevelon**

Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, the likelihood is that most of us will stick with 6th or possibly go back to 5th. I'm simply interested in what the earlier editions had to offer. 2nd and RT were far closer to skirmish games as far as I understand it.

RT was a mess and more like RPG rules.
2nd was "Hero Hammer" and the characters were a much bigger part of the game.

Spoken like someone who wasn't old enough to play either and bases all of his assumptions off of hearsay

I’m with MWHistorian on this one. RT was closer to a RPG then a wargame, and my experience with 2nd matches his.

I’m not going to speak for every old timer out there, but for myself and my group of friends at the time, that’s a fair evaluation of RT/2nd.

**Accolade**

Lobukia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MWHistorian wrote:
I think 6th with some refinement could have been great.

If you ignore the FOC... they have that, called 7th.

So don't bother buying 7th, got it

**MWHistorian**

Accolade wrote:
Lobukia wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MWHistorian wrote:
I think 6th with some refinement could have been great.

If you ignore the FOC... they have that, called 7th.

No, 7th is going the opposite way I meant.

**nobody**

Maniac_nmt wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
So I've heard enough about 7th already to know I'm not interested in GW having my money for 7th. Sorry, but I'm officially done.

Because people will get on my back about this, here's the trick: I like 40K. I don't like Games Workshop.

But that's not what this thread is about. Before the white knights come in proclaiming my manifest evilness against the infallible Gee Dubs, I want to know if 3rd or 4th are worth going back to - and, most importantly, how one could go about introducing a gaming group to these games.

Ok, so 3rd and 4th. What's good and bad, and are they worth getting into over 5th? Obviously there are places I can go online to get the older books to play, so that's not really an issue...

In short, are they worth getting people into over 5th, and would I need any additional material - I know 2nd needed certain cards and stuff.

Thanks all in advance.

3rd is probably best avoided. If you thought 6th was broken for shooting, it is nothing compared to how over the top brokenly all powerful assault was in 3rd. If you ever shot at all other than an initial round of fire, the Ork, Nid, Blood Angel, BT, Space Wolf player was doing something really really really wrong. Super duper sweeping advances that could potentially carry assault marines the entire length of a 6 foot board.

3rd with the Trial Assault rules fixed a lot of that, but flat 3rd? Avoid it like the plague (even after building a Black Templar army I would not play without the TAR, as it was just to stupidly easy with 0 tactics ever as an assault army, you didn't even need to prioritize what you assaulted. Rhino rush 12", then 2" disembark, then 6" assault. Yay for 20" assaults, that were even farther with turbo boosts or speed freak lists. Coupled with smoke launchers forcing everything to glancing, you had what amounted to almost invulnerable delivery vehicles disgorging a horde of cc specialists that could almost sit outside your range before disgorging into combat and annihilating everything if they got the charge off).

4th, yeah, maybe with some codex tweaks/fixes.

This is my thought, though I seem to recall a TVR (Trial Vehicle Rules) that came out around the same time.

4th wasn't that bad at all from what I remember, though there was target priority checks and a couple of goofy codices.

**techsoldaten**

Mysterious Pants wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
3rd? Real men play RT.

Real Men play second edition. Rogue Trader is sooo dated/semi-unplayable.

7th Edition inspired me to permanently shelve my GK and get to work on a Genestealer Cult army. And it's a good thing too- Genestealer Cults are really piking awesome.

Genestealer Cults ate my Ultramarines so often, it was next to impossible to get them before they got into cc.

Good times...

**loki old fart**

Does nobody play the pancake rules.??

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77874047/Warhammer-40k-Leaked-6th-Ed-Rulebook

**Maniac_nmt**

nobody wrote:

This is my thought, though I seem to recall a TVR (Trial Vehicle Rules) that came out around the same time.

4th wasn't that bad at all from what I remember, though there was target priority checks and a couple of goofy codices.

I liked the VDR (Vehicle Design Rules) stuff that was out around 3rd, I'm not sure if you mean those. The no assault after disembark was in the TAR if I remember right.

The VDR could be broken a little, but on the whole they were pretty good and a fun way to add a little variety to army lists.

**Polonius**

When you speak of third edition, you need to realize that there was not one single era of third edition like there was in the other editions, due to the codex reset.

Must people with dim views of 3rd recall the middle chunk of it, with codex creep,OTT assault rules combined with powerful (and cheap) assault units, and virtually no balance within or between codices.

That's not what you'd want to play. To enjoy 3rd edition, play one of two ways.

1: (the high energy way): play with all of the material ever produced for 3rd edition. Every codex, subcodex, WD article, TAR/TVR, etc, etc. Prepare to introduce some basic comp, as those solve some of the problems but not the incredible inbalance available.

2: (the boring but balanced way) play straight bookhammer. The only rules you use are the BBB (and if need be, stripped down necron/tau books) The TAR and TVR mostly corrected flaws introduced by the codices, not the core rules themselves. (although the core rules do have some quirks.)

Bookhammer is admittedly generic, without a lot of options, but it allows for most people with decent collections to set up and play a 1500 pt game in less than two hours.

**liquidjoshi**

Thanks Polonius, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

**Polonius**

liquidjoshi wrote:
Thanks Polonius, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

Basic book 3rd edition with the codices is an almost unplayable mess. Not worth it, IMO.

But bookhammer 3rd edition offers the simplest and cleanest rules and army lists ever available for 40k. Think Kings of War style simplicity.

It also, at the other end of the content spectrum, offers the widest diversity of army lists (although not total units) ever available for 40k.

**liquidjoshi**

Sounds workable. I mean, houseruling wouldn't be out of the question, and it's probably better than dropping significantly more on 7th.

**sing your life**

Xyptc wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
I was aware that every edition had it's problems, I was just interested in knowing where they lay with earlier editions.

We're all more or less casual gamers here, but none of us want to dump money on 7th. We're all familiar with 6th and know 5th well enough, but none of us are too familiar with anything earlier. Hence the thread.

People saying "You might as well play 7th" are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard, or a Carnifex - well, a Carnifex.

Pshah, the Carnifex will have its revenge.

Third was (for me) all about:

- Rhino rush Marines and CSM
- Star cannon spam
- Iron Warriors pounding armies off the tabletop with impunity
- Running a Mutable Tyranid build and wishing that I could use some of the cooler units but not being able to because spam was so effective
- Sweeping Advance into combat was too powerful
- Insane Codex creep (looking at you, Tyranids, CSM 3.5 and Blood Angels)

Interestingly, not much has really changed from the above other than some of the names. Given that the internet wasn't what it is today back then, I dread to think what we would be saying if 3rd were released at the end of its lifecycle tomorrow.

That said, if you pick up 3rd and play with the armies in the BBB only, you might be pleasantly surprised as they were all fairly tame. Not balanced (very much not in fact), but rather everything was slow and fairly easy to counter because of that.

Gotta agree with this. Avoid the infamous rise-tinting, 3rd was defiantly the worst rule set 40k has yet had.

**Gridge**

I actually already decided to play either 3rd or 4th. I already have the books and the guy I normally play with is fed up enough with the way things have gone in newer editions to join me in my retro gaming. Really, the fourth edition SM codex and 3.5 Chaos Marine codex are two of my all time favorites. I will get 7th edition because I have already reserved a copy but I'm not sure that I will ever play it.

**Musashi363**

Hey, MWHistorian, I guess all those years playing RT and 2nd edition together don't count because someone online said we were too young and called us liars. Since you know us so well, how old are we? And yes, RT was a D100 random chart mess. 2nd edition was fun, but a hero centric mess that had close combat lasting an eternity each round. I'm sticking to 6th, the imperfect, but still my favorite edition.

**Vaktathi**

liquidjoshi wrote:
So I've heard enough about 7th already to know I'm not interested in GW having my money for 7th. Sorry, but I'm officially done.

Because people will get on my back about this, here's the trick: I like 40K. I don't like Games Workshop.

But that's not what this thread is about. Before the white knights come in proclaiming my manifest evilness against the infallible Gee Dubs, I want to know if 3rd or 4th are worth going back to - and, most importantly, how one could go about introducing a gaming group to these games.

Ok, so 3rd and 4th. What's good and bad, and are they worth getting into over 5th? Obviously there are places I can go online to get the older books to play, so that's not really an issue...

In short, are they worth getting people into over 5th, and would I need any additional material - I know 2nd needed certain cards and stuff.

Thanks all in advance.

Personally, with the benefit of hindsight, as surprised at myself as I am to say this, I think 5th would be the better option over 3rd or 4th, particularly if you use all the books published in 5th. 5th probably had the least number of non-viable armies and units of those three editions (hooray 3E ~30pt jump marines, hooray IG being a laughingstock book for both editions, etc) and, as bad as it could get, probably also had the best all around balance (not great, but best of the 3).

There are still several features of 5th I consider highly flawed and in dire need of changing. Wound allocation. Kill points. Vehicle moving & shooting rules, etc to name a few. But both 3E and 4E I think had as many issues with their core rules and much worse army books in terms of functionality (much as I like the fluff and feel of my 3.5E CSM book

)

**Banzaimash**

4th's my favourite, although it must be said it favours assault, with Massacre moves and such. Also vehicles are complete deathtraps.

**Davor**

Lord of the Rings. Simply the best rules GW has ever made. Try using them instead of going to another previous edition.

**Accolade**

Davor wrote:
Lord of the Rings. Simply the best rules GW has ever made. Try using them instead of going to another previous edition.

I've thought about this in the context of playing Lord of the Rings with WHFB models on circular bases. It gives the fantasy taste of WHFB without the massive ranks of faceless models.

**liquidjoshi**

Vaktathi wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
So I've heard enough about 7th already to know I'm not interested in GW having my money for 7th. Sorry, but I'm officially done.

Because people will get on my back about this, here's the trick: I like 40K. I don't like Games Workshop.

But that's not what this thread is about. Before the white knights come in proclaiming my manifest evilness against the infallible Gee Dubs, I want to know if 3rd or 4th are worth going back to - and, most importantly, how one could go about introducing a gaming group to these games.

Ok, so 3rd and 4th. What's good and bad, and are they worth getting into over 5th? Obviously there are places I can go online to get the older books to play, so that's not really an issue...

In short, are they worth getting people into over 5th, and would I need any additional material - I know 2nd needed certain cards and stuff.

Thanks all in advance.
Personally, with the benefit of hindsight, as surprised at myself as I am to say this, I think 5th would be the better option over 3rd or 4th, particularly if you use all the books published in 5th. 5th probably had the least number of non-viable armies and units of those three editions (hooray 3E ~30pt jump marines, hooray IG being a laughingstock book for both editions, etc) and, as bad as it could get, probably also had the best all around balance (not great, but best of the 3).

There are still several features of 5th I consider highly flawed and in dire need of changing. Wound allocation. Kill points. Vehicle moving & shooting rules, etc to name a few. But both 3E and 4E I think had as many issues with their core rules and much worse army books in terms of functionality (much as I like the fluff and feel of my 3.5E CSM book )

Eh, that's a point actually. In fact, we might work it so Tau and Eldar can use 6th ED books, possibly Orks as well if their new (7th ed) book fits well enough, obviously cutting the things that don't make sense, such as Overwatch, so Tau are actually playable, as is Farsight, while hopefully keeping things balanced. We'll probably Comp if needed, but as I said, we're all pretty casual around here. Maybe keep things like the psychic tables from 6th. Obviously it'll be a process of trial and error, but it's... well, probably better than 7th

**nobody**

Maniac_nmt wrote:
nobody wrote:

This is my thought, though I seem to recall a TVR (Trial Vehicle Rules) that came out around the same time.

4th wasn't that bad at all from what I remember, though there was target priority checks and a couple of goofy codices.

I liked the VDR (Vehicle Design Rules) stuff that was out around 3rd, I'm not sure if you mean those. The no assault after disembark was in the TAR if I remember right.

The VDR could be broken a little, but on the whole they were pretty good and a fun way to add a little variety to army lists.

Pretty sure TVR is where that rule was, and I think it allowed moving and direct fire ordnance. I need to find the Chapter Approved book.

**Bookwrack**

If you want to go back that far, there's nothing at all in 3rd edition that I'd recommenced it over 4th edition for. Although, I bemusedly remember the days when you always had multiple threads in the tactics forum concerning the fighting against Iron Warriors, and the best ways to do it.

**nobody**

Bookwrack wrote:
If you want to go back that far, there's nothing at all in 3rd edition that I'd recommenced it over 4th edition for. Although, I bemusedly remember the days when you always had multiple threads in the tactics forum concerning the fighting against Iron Warriors, and the best ways to do it.

Third didn't have target priority :p

**Quintinus**

MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, the likelihood is that most of us will stick with 6th or possibly go back to 5th. I'm simply interested in what the earlier editions had to offer. 2nd and RT were far closer to skirmish games as far as I understand it.

RT was a mess and more like RPG rules.
2nd was "Hero Hammer" and the characters were a much bigger part of the game.

Spoken like someone who wasn't old enough to play either and bases all of his assumptions off of hearsay

Wait...what? Speaking of assumptions.
I played the crap out of RT and 2nd.

RT was more like RPG rules but I would hardly call it a mess. It merely had different eras (as the rules developed and matured) to it and overall has less material than the clusterfeth that was 6th or the soon to be piece of gak that is 7th.

2nd was hardly herohammer. You had maybe one or two games where people were getting used to the rules and decked out their characters but overwatch and assault cannons quickly ended that once people got wise.

**Bookwrack**

nobody wrote:
Bookwrack wrote:
If you want to go back that far, there's nothing at all in 3rd edition that I'd recommenced it over 4th edition for. Although, I bemusedly remember the days when you always had multiple threads in the tactics forum concerning the fighting against Iron Warriors, and the best ways to do it.

Third didn't have target priority :p

Like I said, third really had nothing to recommend it, because at least in 4th, you could try and shot a more distant target on a leadership check, instead of _having_ to shot the closest. Man, that made for some really dumb screening tactics.

**MWHistorian**

Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, the likelihood is that most of us will stick with 6th or possibly go back to 5th. I'm simply interested in what the earlier editions had to offer. 2nd and RT were far closer to skirmish games as far as I understand it.

RT was a mess and more like RPG rules.
2nd was "Hero Hammer" and the characters were a much bigger part of the game.

Spoken like someone who wasn't old enough to play either and bases all of his assumptions off of hearsay

Wait...what? Speaking of assumptions.
I played the crap out of RT and 2nd.

RT was more like RPG rules but I would hardly call it a mess. It merely had different eras (as the rules developed and matured) to it and overall has less material than the clusterfeth that was 6th or the soon to be piece of gak that is 7th.

2nd was hardly herohammer. You had maybe one or two games where people were getting used to the rules and decked out their characters but overwatch and assault cannons quickly ended that once people got wise.

When you roll on a 1D100 chart and have your space marine field police get a shuriken catipult and a motion detector or whatever, yeah, that's a mess.
And for 2nd, characters were always hugely important, at least in the games I played. You didn't even have to deck them out. I had a cannoness with a powersword cut her way through almost an entire squad of chaos marines by herself.

**Klerych**

I don't know.. personally I think 7th fixes a lot of what was wrong with 6th(which was pretty great aside from poor flyers rules, melee armies getting the short end of the stick and the awful army/unit combos), so I see no reason to go back to any previous edition everyone only praises because of pure nostalgia as they had some fun with it when they were kids/younger. 3rd and 4th were -far- from being perfect and if you want to bother with all that stuff Polonius listed to make 3rd playable(unless using only the BRB), you'd in fact most likely be more successful adjusting 6th to your group's needs.

**obithius**

"And for 2nd, characters were always hugely important, at least in the games I played. You didn't even have to deck them out. I had a cannoness with a powersword cut her way through almost an entire squad of chaos marines by herself."

I've never really understood this, nor the whole 'herohammer' thing. Characters could be very good compared to regular troops, but isn't that the same as the current game?

Assume a character in 2nd ed. charged an enemy squad. He would be in contact with one, maybe two models, which he would chop up. He then gets a 2" follow up move to engage a third model. In the squad's turn the rest of the unit can simply run away, leaving their friend behind, or even stay where they are and shoot at something. The character can only kill one per close combat phase, and follow up 2". It takes so long to earn his points it isn't worth it!

If you really want to kill the super character you can gang up on him. Each additional model gets +1 attack and +1 WS, so the 6th model is fighting at +5 attacks and +5 WS. The outnumbering player chooses the order the fights are carried out, so make sure your guy with the power fist is fighting last :-)

**Quintinus**

MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, the likelihood is that most of us will stick with 6th or possibly go back to 5th. I'm simply interested in what the earlier editions had to offer. 2nd and RT were far closer to skirmish games as far as I understand it.

RT was a mess and more like RPG rules.
2nd was "Hero Hammer" and the characters were a much bigger part of the game.

Spoken like someone who wasn't old enough to play either and bases all of his assumptions off of hearsay

Wait...what? Speaking of assumptions.
I played the crap out of RT and 2nd.

RT was more like RPG rules but I would hardly call it a mess. It merely had different eras (as the rules developed and matured) to it and overall has less material than the clusterfeth that was 6th or the soon to be piece of gak that is 7th.

2nd was hardly herohammer. You had maybe one or two games where people were getting used to the rules and decked out their characters but overwatch and assault cannons quickly ended that once people got wise.

When you roll on a 1D100 chart and have your space marine field police get a shuriken catipult and a motion detector or whatever, yeah, that's a mess.
And for 2nd, characters were always hugely important, at least in the games I played. You didn't even have to deck them out. I had a cannoness with a powersword cut her way through almost an entire squad of chaos marines by herself.

Wow, you're telling me that you DIDN'T like it when your Chaos Legionnaire Captain got a flail arm and a sawn-off-shotgun to complement his Juggernaut?
Rolling on the charts was enjoyable for me and kept things fresh.

And that Canoness with Power Sword would have been mulched by my post-heresy Khorne Terminators, just sayin'

My real issue with RT was the army lists-all units of the same designation (i.e. Tactical) had to be outfitted in the same way.

**MWHistorian**

Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Vladsimpaler wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, the likelihood is that most of us will stick with 6th or possibly go back to 5th. I'm simply interested in what the earlier editions had to offer. 2nd and RT were far closer to skirmish games as far as I understand it.

RT was a mess and more like RPG rules.
2nd was "Hero Hammer" and the characters were a much bigger part of the game.

Spoken like someone who wasn't old enough to play either and bases all of his assumptions off of hearsay

Wait...what? Speaking of assumptions.
I played the crap out of RT and 2nd.

RT was more like RPG rules but I would hardly call it a mess. It merely had different eras (as the rules developed and matured) to it and overall has less material than the clusterfeth that was 6th or the soon to be piece of gak that is 7th.

2nd was hardly herohammer. You had maybe one or two games where people were getting used to the rules and decked out their characters but overwatch and assault cannons quickly ended that once people got wise.

When you roll on a 1D100 chart and have your space marine field police get a shuriken catipult and a motion detector or whatever, yeah, that's a mess.
And for 2nd, characters were always hugely important, at least in the games I played. You didn't even have to deck them out. I had a cannoness with a powersword cut her way through almost an entire squad of chaos marines by herself.

Wow, you're telling me that you DIDN'T like it when your Chaos Legionnaire Captain got a flail arm and a sawn-off-shotgun to complement his Juggernaut?
Rolling on the charts was enjoyable for me and kept things fresh.

And that Canoness with Power Sword would have been mulched by my post-heresy Khorne Terminators, just sayin'

My real issue with RT was the army lists-all units of the same designation (i.e. Tactical) had to be outfitted in the same way.

Fully agree, RT and 2nd terminators were terrifying back then and not the joke they are now.

**nemesis464**

Early 5th ed. was the best time by far.