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 3rd Ed Rapid Fire rules were also designed around the balance between Shuriken Catapults being Assault 2 12", which looks pretty good compared to 3rd ed Rapid Fire Bolters. As Rapid Fire changed, bolters just continued to get way better while Catapults and other weapons stayed the same, until they became kind of a joke by comparison.

Which always struck me as odd, back in 2nd edition Shuriken Catapults had a 24" range. Along with the -2 save modifer, and a sustained fire die, they were perfect at killing Marines... and most infantry for that matter.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The 3rd Ed Rapid Fire rules were also designed around the balance between Shuriken Catapults being Assault 2 12", which looks pretty good compared to 3rd ed Rapid Fire Bolters. As Rapid Fire changed, bolters just continued to get way better while Catapults and other weapons stayed the same, until they became kind of a joke by comparison.

I agree, but you don’t even need to go outside the marine codex to see the evolution.

It wasn’t until 8th where the stormbolter finally came back.

In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

The SB got 2 shots at 24” and you could move and charge without issue.

The difference in force projection was HUGE. Stormbolters were worth the points. But while the statlines stayed the same, the rapid fire rules got better and better each edition. To the point where SBs were a joke.

I recall the tactical decision to move or shoot was big in 3rd. If you moved up, you were not shooting well (or at all). But there was a dance where you wanted to be the first one to be double-tapping. So sit back and take your limited fire? Or move up to set yourself up for next turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stonehorse wrote:
Which always struck me as odd, back in 2nd edition Shuriken Catapults had a 24" range. Along with the -2 save modifer, and a sustained fire die, they were perfect at killing Marines... and most infantry for that matter.

That was a nerf that many of us still hurt from.

Hey, I know we are a dieing race, here is your SMG, go hug a tyranid.

 aphyon wrote:

CptMendoza wrote:
Thanks all for the input - I've got the core rules, chapter approved 03/04 and ork/chaos dexes inbound over the next two weeks. In the meantime I need to hunt down a set of templates.

Reading the 1st/2nd edition ork dexes was kind of a shock as to how much detail the game has lost in favor of speed. Just the rolls for a shokk attack gun sound like they'd take ages to resolve.

Yeah that is one of the great things about the older codexes. i think the 3rd ed dark angels mini dex has more fluff in it than all the full codexes that came after it.

the ork codex in 4th/5th was also still fun with the ramshackle table for trukks and the random effects of the shokk attack gun for example . always fun to see a big mech turn into a warp grenade of random size.

I can't say I was a fan of the 3rd Edition Dark Angels Mini-Dex. It was a huge step backwards from the 2nd Edition Codex, even if the 2nd Ed Codex was shared with the Blood Angels. The 3rd Ed DA Mini-Dex didn't have very much fluff at all, although it did have Veteran Sergeant Naaman so its not all bad! I played Orks in 2nd Ed, but found them humourless and flavourless from 3rd Ed onwards. That's just me!

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

 Nevelon wrote:
That was a nerf that many of us still hurt from.

To be fair - guardians in 2nd edition were armed with lasguns, not shuriken catapults. I guess in 3rd edition that would have translated to a 30pt squad upgrade to get counts-as stormbolters... I could see players going for that.

In 2nd edition you could upgrade your guardians with shuriken catapults for 3 points a model (the weapon being 5 points by itself, for comparison a plasma gun was 8 points). A shuriken catapult matched stats with a storm bolter while having an additional -1 save modifier.

Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

Also 2nd edition was extremely deadly, more so for Toughness 3 models wearing 5+ armour, so guardians died if you glanced in their direction. I'd even have taken lasguns on my guardians in place of 12" guns they were later saddled with.

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Sure, and I fully disagree. They could have easily made vehicles equivalent to BS4 if they wanted to mimic targeters. But giving Guardians BS and WS 4 which is what the Aspect Warriors have is a gak stupid decision. 40K in general needs to get the feth over the stupid "everyone should be stunningly good and accurate"...it's what ruins any wargame, and is arguably 8th's biggest failing. A BS4 in 2nd edition also mattered far less than later editions because you actually had modifiers to hit (read: cover, speed, etc.).

Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

But you'd think eventually they'd figure out what worked best in each edition and try to combine it.

Personally I'd prefer 4th with the 3.5 codex. And IA 13 adjusted to fit the rules.

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

 Elbows wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Keep in mind in 2nd edition and several ones later, guardians were still the appropriate BS3 instead of BS4 they inexplicably gained later.

The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Sure, and I fully disagree. They could have easily made vehicles equivalent to BS4 if they wanted to mimic targeters. But giving Guardians BS and WS 4 which is what the Aspect Warriors have is a gak stupid decision. 40K in general needs to get the feth over the stupid "everyone should be stunningly good and accurate"...it's what ruins any wargame, and is arguably 8th's biggest failing. A BS4 in 2nd edition also mattered far less than later editions because you actually had modifiers to hit (read: cover, speed, etc.).

Fair. The big crime still is leaving the Catapult in the dust over the editions. Now we have Intercessors shooting twice on the move at 30" with a -2 sv. while the Shuriken Catapult has a 12" range and no AP. It's an abomination.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

I agree with the rest but why this specifically?

I also need to point out that the costs for things was very different. A Tactical Squad with Missile Launcher and Flamer was 360 points. A Land Raider with Twin Heavy Bolters and two Twin Lascannons was 220. The expectation on vehicles was very different.

Yeah, in 2nd edition vehicles were perhaps even more prone to being one-shot killed than in later editions.

The fun though was the use of mega-swingy dice, which drastically created the variety in results.

Vehicles were definitely cheap, but were also pretty damn good as far as laying down firepower. Dreadnoughts were quite devastating with high ballistic skill, coupled with targeters, etc.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

 Kroem wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

Just checked my 3rd ed rulebook.

If you stood still to fire heavy or rapid fire weapons, you could not assault. So no double-tap then charge. But you could move, single shot, and charge.

This might have changed in the trial assault rules, but I’m not digging though my pile of WDs to verify that.

So I’m technically wrong on this one, but I do recall there was a reason I didn’t just blast away and pile in.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

You are missing the point. 3rd edition Rapid Fire rules put players on a position where they had to make hard choices. 'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it.'

Hard choices like this are what should be the main point of strategic play in a miniature wargame. A player who has lost should be able to look back and pin point what choices they did wrong. Sadly 8th seems to have erased that element.

I get the point you're trying to make, but I think the relevancy of that choice, for its own sake, is misplaced. Through playing CSM's and IG during that era, I can't ever recall this being a question that the Rapid Fire rules had any meaningful bearing on the outcome of, it was always a secondary or tertiary consideration at best.

Now, having to make that choice worked well with Heavy Weapons, as their damage output was what many armies were built around, but Rapid Fire weapons were just so incapable at long range (barring Plasma) that the choice was typically illusory (being dictated by other factors instead, such as the presence of a heavy weapon or proximity of a charge) or was generally made moot anyway through army building. Don't forget, it also required an Ld test to shoot at anything other than the closest unit, further reducing the value of having to make that choice with rapid fire weapons as you had a chance to be forced to shoot at something closer anyway by another mechanic.

The damage output of that extended range was so low that it just wasn't a meaningful choice 99% of the time, it was rarely a "hard choice", and forcing that choice ultimately rendered the weapon type ineffective for its role, resulting in a bad mechanic. Players largely avoided having to make choice in the way they picked and built their units and armies, particularly when everything could score and Troops were just a thing you had to take 2 of.

The question of"'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it" was almost always decided by factors other than the Rapid Fire weapons. More typically it was just avoided entirely from the start, and what we actually got was "the 4 dudes with Rapid Fire weapons in this unit are gonna babysit the Lascannon and sit still the whole game on this back field objective or in my table quarter next to the other squad I'm forced to take and probably never have to make that choice, while anything that's going to take an objective is probably going to be kitting to get in close and will always choose to advance anyway, or won't be reliant RF weapons".

I never found the rare edge cases (stuff like a lone depleted guard unit sitting on an objective that could be meaningfully shifted by a half dozen bolter shots) examples to be common or relevant enough to justify keeping the Rapid Fire weapons as restrictive as they were.

 Insectum7 wrote:
The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Everyone lost it. 2nd ed marine vehicles were BS 5, guard were BS 4, orks were BS 3. Though the eldar did get it back on the fire prism in 4th.

TBH I think the guardian change would have been less conspicuous if not for bladestorm, or as sisters players knew it "what the hell cruddace?"

Third brought the great stat-line flattening. In second we saw a much larger range of numbers on the statlines. In 3rd, it felt like almost everything was either a 3 or a 4.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Yeah, I started in 3rd as well, but I've seen the vehicle rules from 2nd and no. Just. No.

I agree with the rest but why this specifically?

I also need to point out that the costs for things was very different. A Tactical Squad with Missile Launcher and Flamer was 360 points. A Land Raider with Twin Heavy Bolters and two Twin Lascannons was 220. The expectation on vehicles was very different.

Well I've never seen the points for 2nd, I could see how they may make more sense if they don't really perform the same roles. Maybe I'm looking at them through the wrong lens. But I'm still pretty sure I'd prefer 3rd up. Familiarity and all that.

A.T. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
The BS 3 to 4 change was a good one, not only because the Catapult kept getting left behind in the edition updates, but because Eldar vehicles were crewed by Guardians. The BS 4 actually brought them in line with 2nd, since they had Targeters in vehicles in 2nd.

Everyone lost it. 2nd ed marine vehicles were BS 5, guard were BS 4, orks were BS 3. Though the eldar did get it back on the fire prism in 4th.

TBH I think the guardian change would have been less conspicuous if not for bladestorm, or as sisters players knew it "what the hell cruddace?"

Not everyone had Targeters though. I don't remember for vehicles but definitely Infantry werent all equipped.

In 2nd edition, most races excluding Orks and Tyranids had targeters on almost every vehicle-borne weapon. However, veteran marines and terminators also had BS5 (2+ shooting), and some terminator weapons had additional targeters, etc.

There was a decent stack of to-hit modifiers though, so it was less amazing than you'd initially suspect. However, if you were stupid enough to be caught out in the open...you'd get raked down. Remember any decent cover (beyond brush/fences) was a -2 modifier to hit. The reason that the old BS system worked well with this was that ultra-powerful characters could more or less ignore most modifiers by dint of having BS 6/7/8, etc.

This is something the game actually lost in 8th edition and I think it was a mistake. While you have easier stats of 2+, 3+, etc....you can't differentiate between say a Primarch at 2+, and a simple Space Marine Captain, etc. They brought back a lot of to-hit modifiers, but by ditching the BS system, they lost maneuvering room with the stats.

^Terminators all came with Targeters, as did all Marine Heavy Weapons, which set them aside from the other Imperial infantry at least. I assume the Eldar Platforms had Targeters, too. But it meant a base 2+ for Devastators and a 1+ for Terminators. Hard Cover against Guardsmen meant they hit on 6s, Hard Cover against Termies meant 3+s, creating a vast difference in ability once to-hit modifiers got involved.

In general I agree, the to-hit mods for cover was a good system, as well as the increased range of skill. I'd prefer that over the re-rolls of 8th for sure.

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

I feel you there- i think my rage at GW never really went away. i had a 3rd ed pure ravenwing and deathwing army based on the restrictions in the mini-dex. for example the only land speeders the raven wing could take were tornados(even back when assault cannons jammed ) and all those attack bike support squads...then the 4th ed codex came out and invalidate 3/4 of the list banning what had been a requirement. something akin to $300 worth of minis in 2004 money.

Thats when i sold off most of my deathwing/ravenwing and started TAU.


Many of the minis i kept from back then i have as display pieces like my FW landraiders. i may use them from time to time but they are not in normal rotation.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

While I had some good gaming in the 3rd Edition era it was not as fun, for me, as 2nd Edition. The editions after 3rd were attempts to fix flaws, and I was very happy when 8th reset everything and took a few pages from 2nd Ed.

Well i think the reality of switching from a kill team/necromunda style skirmish style game that was 2nd ed where bringing a single leman russ (and it's 2 pages of rules) was a huge deal to a platoon or army scale game that 3rd on up became would be a shock to the system. i think i would feel the same if they tried to make infinity into an army wide game and the streamlining they would need to do to make it playable at such a scale

I started in 3rd so i really didn't get to experience anything before that as my TT game before 40K was battletech(well i still play that to). though i have read through some of the old books.

I understand the marketing reasons for why GW did what it did, i see the flaws each edition had as well as the good ideas that got put in the mix. while 5th is still my favorite edition with a few tweaks, at least 8th is tolerable (without stratagem overload) where as 6th literally killed the game at my FLGS (didn't play 40K for like a year until 7th dropped, even if it was a marginal improvement before formation spam)

Most players are going to expect the newest edition, but the nice thing is that those of us with the books can still use our miniature collections to play whichever version of the game we enjoy most. with like minded gamers as the OP in this topic is trying out.

Agreed. Nostalgia is powerful, as is the the feeling of discovering a "lost game." I wish the OP well in his gaming!

Regarding edition change, I am all for change as long as the things I like stay exactly the same. For me, 3rd made my Grand Tournament army illegal. I had a 1500 point force with a Captain with Jump Pack, an Epistolary, a Techmarine, a Devastator Squad, a fully tooled up Assault Squad with Jump Packs, and a Predator Annihilator with Heavy Bolter sponsons. The 3rd Ed FOC invalidated my list, and my Assault Squad was not usable in 3rd. It seems minor now, but at the time I was pretty bummed. I missed the psychic powers and I actually enjoyed my Predator in 2nd Ed that struggled in 3rd. Never mind what happened to Terminators. Still, good games were had!

This is the inherent problem with a lack of a FOC, without telling the average gamer what the backbone of an army is youd see the most elite of elite filling all requirements. WFB had the same issue before 6th, and both games were better balanced for the structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroem wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
In 3rd, your basic bolter could shoot twice at 12” or once to 24” if you stood still, or once at 12” if you moved. (and you could’t charge afterwards)

You most assuredly COULD charge after shooting rapid fire weapons in 3rd. That wasn't put in until 4th, and as a response Thousand Sons got AP3 rapid fire Bolters. And you also weren't obligated to charge the unit you shot in 3rd until the trial rules at the soonest. I don't have those on hand so your guess is as good as mine. The whole inanely complexed "locked" mechanic was enough to put me off of them completely.

I thought that you could shoot and charge, but that you lost the +1 attack for charging if you had shot that same turn.

No, that came in with 4th for sure, Trial Assault Rules at the earliest.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I don't think Rapid Fire weapons are a huge issue, and at least my recollection through earlier editions was that most thought they were far too restrictive in their functionality in 3E and 4E (and everyone wanted Assault type weapons if possible since they had no restrictions on their use), getting a half dozen bolter or lasgun shots after moving at a target at 24" in 3E probably wouldn't have broken the game and would have given a lot of units something more to do than babysit a static lascannon.

In 8E, it's hard to see a direct issue with Rapid Fire weapons inherently as a weapon type, though as with most everything else they can be enhanced and buffed to levels impossible in previous editions, and that many weapons now sport significantly more shots than they did in previous editions (e.g. Hurricane bolters and Storm Bolters). Additionally, LoS allows shots that wouldn't have worked in 3E or 4E due to the Area Terrain rules.

Shots that couldn't have been taken due to LoS or that would have only likely killed a single marine or a couple guardsmen in 3E can now be taken much easier or may be able to be passively buffed to such a degree that now they may slay three marines or half a dozen guardsmen. It's not really anything related to the fundamental Rapid Fire rules though.

You are missing the point. 3rd edition Rapid Fire rules put players on a position where they had to make hard choices. 'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it.'

Hard choices like this are what should be the main point of strategic play in a miniature wargame. A player who has lost should be able to look back and pin point what choices they did wrong. Sadly 8th seems to have erased that element.

I get the point you're trying to make, but I think the relevancy of that choice, for its own sake, is misplaced. Through playing CSM's and IG during that era, I can't ever recall this being a question that the Rapid Fire rules had any meaningful bearing on the outcome of, it was always a secondary or tertiary consideration at best.

Now, having to make that choice worked well with Heavy Weapons, as their damage output was what many armies were built around, but Rapid Fire weapons were just so incapable at long range (barring Plasma) that the choice was typically illusory (being dictated by other factors instead, such as the presence of a heavy weapon or proximity of a charge) or was generally made moot anyway through army building. Don't forget, it also required an Ld test to shoot at anything other than the closest unit, further reducing the value of having to make that choice with rapid fire weapons as you had a chance to be forced to shoot at something closer anyway by another mechanic.

The damage output of that extended range was so low that it just wasn't a meaningful choice 99% of the time, it was rarely a "hard choice", and forcing that choice ultimately rendered the weapon type ineffective for its role, resulting in a bad mechanic. Players largely avoided having to make choice in the way they picked and built their units and armies, particularly when everything could score and Troops were just a thing you had to take 2 of.

The question of"'do I advance this unit into that objective and forego shooting at that enemy unit that I won't have range on... or do I stay still and shoot the enemy unit and take the Objective next turn if I cause enough damage to the enemy unit to break it" was almost always decided by factors other than the Rapid Fire weapons. More typically it was just avoided entirely from the start, and what we actually got was "the 4 dudes with Rapid Fire weapons in this unit are gonna babysit the Lascannon and sit still the whole game on this back field objective or in my table quarter next to the other squad I'm forced to take and probably never have to make that choice, while anything that's going to take an objective is probably going to be kitting to get in close and will always choose to advance anyway, or won't be reliant RF weapons".

I never found the rare edge cases (stuff like a lone depleted guard unit sitting on an objective that could be meaningfully shifted by a half dozen bolter shots) examples to be common or relevant enough to justify keeping the Rapid Fire weapons as restrictive as they were.

As a Necron player in 3rd edition it came up a lot. In a standard 1,500pts game almost a third of that was locked into the core minimum need in the FOC. Necron warriors came in squads of 10 minimum, and only had rapid firing Gauss rifles. It was essentially a bolt gun that could wound/glance on a 6 regardless. Not every force had the option of equipping members of units with Heavy/Assault Weapons or Power weapons. For those forces the Rapid fire rules put them into a position where hard choices had to be made. You mention that you played Chaos and Imperial Guard, both of whom can take more exotic weapons on their basic squad, so I can imagine this painted a different picture for your experience in Rapid Fire weapons.

Lol remember when terminators didn't have an invul save?
You'll also need a white dwarf for Mounted Demonettes and Tau with Railrifles.
Eye of Terror and Armageddon are a must.
Chaos 3.5 is the greatest Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.
And beware Black Templars. Because they fall forward instead of back.
And don't forget you can't use special characters without permission.

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

 DeffDred wrote:
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.

Oooooooooooooooooh, I take it back. Anyone trying to game the game on that level probably thought the Chaos 3.5 codex was fair. For them.


And you got it wrong. You pivot on the spot so in the example you provided the back end of your Rhino would be hanging off the edge of the table when you pivot to move, so you gain possibly a half inch.

 Just Tony wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

 DeffDred wrote:
Remember to but all your marines in Rhinos. Set up your Rhinos at the edge of your deployment zone with their sides against the edge. Rotating vehicles doesn't count as movement so you gain an inch and a half before you even move.

Oooooooooooooooooh, I take it back. Anyone trying to game the game on that level probably thought the Chaos 3.5 codex was fair. For them.


And you got it wrong. You pivot on the spot so in the example you provided the back end of your Rhino would be hanging off the edge of the table when you pivot to move, so you gain possibly a half inch.

I think DeffDred meant the leading edge of your deployment zone, not back against the table edge.

 Just Tony wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
Chaos 3.5 is the most horribly balanced and overpowered Codex ever made and will ruin friendships.

Fixed that for you...

I never found any TAC build out of that book to be particularly OP. It was more like you could make some insanely skewed lists that would still suffer hugely from the right counterbuild. You could do A LOT with that book, which was really what made it great.