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.

Was doing my research and came up with the following video on the Tube:



Listening through, I was reminded of many things, and have actually changed my mind (I think) about which may be my favourite edition. Still fond of 2nd but maybe most of that is memories of the good old days. 3rd and 4th, mostly 3rd I think, is my favourite of these editions.

I know, there are a few threads covering old editions, already. Not trying to quadruple dip, mostly just wanted to share what i thought was an excellent video recap. Personally, some of the quips resonated with me also, e.g. when mentioning how moving to matched tourney play alienated 'everyone else' or something like that. So, I leave it to my fellow 'nauts to leave their own opinions in the thread below.

As someone who started playing in 8th I found this video excellent. Clear and well presented, giving enough detail to provide context to each edition without getting bogged down in details. It gave me a much better understanding of the game.

There were a few finer points i would have added but overall, it was a decent overview.

It is no surprise that most of my favorite stuff involved Andy Chambers in the lead design chair.

The video was decent and concise.

I'll be the contrarian a little bit...

I think the video was well done and provided a sense of what the general gist of each edition was from a "release" standpoint (types of models, codex formats, campaign books or not, etc.).

But, the video really says very little about how the gameplay itself changed across editions, and what that meant in terms of list/building collecting, playing games, level of competitiveness etc.

I wish there was a video of this quality that really emphasized the gameplay experience, in particular to show players that have only been playing 40k since 8th or 9th edition, how things worked earlier on, back in 3rd/4th - and why for many of us it made the game more focused on table-level tactics related to positioning and maneuvering forces.

Some of the changes in the way gameplay has evolved, rather significantly, include, but isn't limited to the following:

(1) Fixed charge distances between random distances.

(2) Target selection + priority rules: From having to shoot to closest unit and everyone in the squad shoots the same target all the way over to each model shoots each weapon separately.

(3) Morale and units breaking resulting in actual fall back moves versus just suffering extra casualties.

(4) Missions being variations of the same basic control point objective (as matched play is today) versus a huge range of missions with asymmetric objectives (ala 4th edition mission sets).

(5) Cover and AP system, switching from a binary "you get it or you don't" to a more heavily modifier based system. (incidentally, 8th/9th feels more like a return to 1st/2nd edition in this regard, with a LOT of modifiers in play).

(6) Scoring unit rules heavily emphasizing (or force org requiring) a large outlay of points in basic troop units with more standardized force org charts versus the chaos of formations versus basically do whatever you want in 9th.

(7) Shifts to line of sight rules, area terrain rules, effect of cover.

(8) Use of the initiative characteristic for attack order in melee fights versus alternative selection order.

(9) Vehicles working fundamentally different from non-vehicle units, down to how they take damage. Inclusion of hull points or not, armor facing, etc.

(10) Casualty removal process (closest model first, defender discretion, etc.) and ability to batch roll or not.

(11) Basic weapon profiles and capabilities, and impact on moving and shooting. This has also changed a lot relative to rapid fire weapons.

Anyway - all of this is to say that some of the changes under the hood are probably less apparent than the types of things covered in this video, but were hugely impactful to the feel and experience of playing the game. Different editions by way of the rules, put you and your opponent in a different headspace and setup different expectations about the type of game you were playing. I'd love to see someone really dive into that.

Tallonian4th wrote:
As someone who started playing in 8th I found this video excellent. Clear and well presented, giving enough detail to provide context to each edition without getting bogged down in details. It gave me a much better understanding of the game.

I think I rate Arbitor Ian as my favourite GW content creator on YouTube at the moment. His presentational style is fantastic, and I love his grounded and mature attitude to the games. Great stuff.

3 and 3.5 was when I was hardcore into the tournament scene. The balance was just as bad then for the same reasons it is today but the more wargame elements like vehicle facings etc made it a fun experience for me.

I'd have to say 3.5 and 5th were my favorite times, barring the horri-bad codex balance (5th edition was the edition of grey - necrons, space wolves, and grey knights and it was also the edition I mostly c hecked out of 40k for those reasons)

Mezmorki, i agree, that was my direction of thought with "finer points" he would have to make a longer video focused just on gameplay not on overall general release.

As close as he got was "a total re-write of the rules" with 3rd and 8th editions.



Macca goes through a bit deeper explanation of the editions with his review (which is obviously longer)-

Aphyon thanks for that. Perfect follow up on the thread… I will tune in when I wake up!

Thing I'm not keen on is this continued 'hero hammer' line in 2nd ed.

In 3-5 a space marine commander could easily kill 4-6 marines a turn. No saves.

In 2nd they could only get 6 models in BtB contact, and by the 4th marine they would have equal WS and the marine would have 5 attacks compared to the commanders WS7 and A3...

and that's not including the potential for armour saves in 2nd ed.


Herohammer is vastly overblown in 2nd ed and IMO was far more of a problem in 3-5, especially with pursuit rolls.

Did 3rd have the crossfire mechanic, whereby if a unit fallback into an area in which opposing units could hose it down as it ran, then it was removed? I think that I remember this correctly, from 2nd... right? Can't remember if it existed in 3rd and thereafter. And btw, I really did not like the h2h mechanic whereby units could chase down other units - "sweeping advance" - not a terrible idea, but could result in some ridiculousness.

Yes, but cutting down the enemy as they turned to run was thematic (and keeps the game moving).

It is also where marines having "And They Shall Know No Fear" (ATSKNF) really made marines stand out. as if you tried to sweeping advance them, they would just turn and fight.

 Hellebore wrote:
Thing I'm not keen on is this continued 'hero hammer' line in 2nd ed.

In 3-5 a space marine commander could easily kill 4-6 marines a turn. No saves.

In 2nd they could only get 6 models in BtB contact, and by the 4th marine they would have equal WS and the marine would have 5 attacks compared to the commanders WS7 and A3...

and that's not including the potential for armour saves in 2nd ed.


Herohammer is vastly overblown in 2nd ed and IMO was far more of a problem in 3-5, especially with pursuit rolls.

and that's if marine CHOOSES to send in 6 models BtB. How many the marine commander can himself move in b2b contact with? Enemy squad is dispersed to maximum.

You weren't even engaged unless you were b2b and you could shoot if you weren't engaged...So Marine Commander of Doom charges into squad. Opponent simply doesn't move more models to b2b so while the marine commander kills 1-2 models it's in b2b shoots elswhere. You didn't HAVE to move your models toward enemy in combat so on the shooty squad turn to move just 1 model so Marine Commander of Doom can't move into b2b with multiple.

Short of morale test failing 10 marines will hold Marine Commander of Doom for quite a few combat phases(and only 8 in whole game. Assuming you go first and get to combat right away).

Have morale issue fixed and 20 grots will tag 2 bloodthirsters for all game...

Hero hammer in 2nd ed was only issue if you hero hammered yourself or was super heavy on vehicles as only ones that really had stuff to worry were expensive single models...Aka herohammer characters and vehicles.

 aphyon wrote:
Yes, but cutting down the enemy as they turned to run was thematic (and keeps the game moving).

It is also where marines having "And They Shall Know No Fear" (ATSKNF) really made marines stand out. as if you tried to sweeping advance them, they would just turn and fight.

To be clear, I think that I liked the crossfire mechanic. It was thematic, and rewarded placement, getting behind enemy lines.

My issue with Sweeping Advance is that you can delete a giant unit, or unit of giants, with no retaliation, if you just get lucky. I had a unit of 3 wound t5 robots get run down after taking one wound. In whfb, I had my Stormvermin get one wound off and destroy a unit of swordsmen much better in melee. It doesn't feel fluffy or fun.

 Hellebore wrote:
Thing I'm not keen on is this continued 'hero hammer' line in 2nd ed.

In 3-5 a space marine commander could easily kill 4-6 marines a turn. No saves.

In 2nd they could only get 6 models in BtB contact, and by the 4th marine they would have equal WS and the marine would have 5 attacks compared to the commanders WS7 and A3...

and that's not including the potential for armour saves in 2nd ed.


Herohammer is vastly overblown in 2nd ed and IMO was far more of a problem in 3-5, especially with pursuit rolls.

I agree. I often think that it 'felt' more like Herohammer, because of the wargear cards and also psychic phase. You had some 4th level librarian gating around the board using psychic powers (which had their own phase) and so you could end up spending an inordinate amount of time around the actions of the character models. Although the counter argument would be that this was the case with everything in the game, as you had a lot less abstraction than in 3rd edition onwards which had increased the abstraction necessarily to deal with the higher model count; thinking that squads of bikes could take an age to action, if a few of them had damage and went off in random directions, and even having to roll for changes to gas grenades and the like each turn.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My issue with Sweeping Advance is that you can delete a giant unit, or unit of giants, with no retaliation, if you just get lucky. I had a unit of 3 wound t5 robots get run down after taking one wound. In whfb, I had my Stormvermin get one wound off and destroy a unit of swordsmen much better in melee. It doesn't feel fluffy or fun.

I chased ghazghkull and a mob of boys he attached himself off the table with a venerable dreadnought it was epic.

Since ghaz was fearless and the mob wasn't i imagined it as ghaz wanting to stay and fight and the boys draggin him away cuz it was just to scary.

 aphyon wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My issue with Sweeping Advance is that you can delete a giant unit, or unit of giants, with no retaliation, if you just get lucky. I had a unit of 3 wound t5 robots get run down after taking one wound. In whfb, I had my Stormvermin get one wound off and destroy a unit of swordsmen much better in melee. It doesn't feel fluffy or fun.

I chased ghazghkull and a mob of boys he attached himself off the table with a venerable dreadnought it was epic.

Since ghaz was fearless and the mob wasn't i imagined it as ghaz wanting to stay and fight and the boys draggin him away cuz it was just to scary.

I guess I shouldn't say that it's not fun, that's not a very good metric to use, as everyone finds different things fun. But morale actually doing something is something I truly want back for 40k. It would be nice to have moments where morale isn't just deleting models from a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I did get a chuckle from that example. Ghaz being dragged away from a fight is pretty funny.

I think models to morale generally, and sweeping advance especially, is just a real feel bad mechanic for a lot of people. And it is because its just "roll to lose models".

There are loads of things they could do to make that more interesting. Eg if you've sustained a certain number of casualties, you have to make a morale check at the start of your turn, and if you fail you sustain soem penalties such as restrictions on charging, forced to fall back if in combat, can only shoot nearest enemy, or some combination.

 Hellebore wrote:
Thing I'm not keen on is this continued 'hero hammer' line in 2nd ed.

In 3-5 a space marine commander could easily kill 4-6 marines a turn. No saves.

In 2nd they could only get 6 models in BtB contact, and by the 4th marine they would have equal WS and the marine would have 5 attacks compared to the commanders WS7 and A3...

and that's not including the potential for armour saves in 2nd ed.


Herohammer is vastly overblown in 2nd ed and IMO was far more of a problem in 3-5, especially with pursuit rolls.

I agree. Being a "hero" in 2nd was more dangerous than in every edition that would follow. Why? Well, because of real Overwatch existing so it was rather difficult to get into melee unharmed. Another thing was the fact that a single shot from a heavy weapon could send a character to the hospital. If he/she was being hit by a krak missile, lascannon or multi-melta it usually was certain death. Also dreadnoughts were hero level units with intimidating weapon skill. Should it engage your character in melee you had to be one of the best in the game to survive the encounter.

 Stux wrote:
I think models to morale generally, and sweeping advance especially, is just a real feel bad mechanic for a lot of people. And it is because its just "roll to lose models".

Oldschool tabletop game rules, morale was key. It was even more brutal in WHFB where a fleeing unit could cause other units to flee - some armies would lose an entire flank in one go.

40k could have used some mitigation like not being eligable for wipeout above half strength or above 10 models, or something to that effect.

While the system was good for moving the game along it could be very swingy in weird circumstances, such as an unarmed scout sentinel scraping out a single wound on a huge guard blob and then immediately crushing dozens more underfoot in the combat resolution.

It's not just morale but psychology that I miss... Fear, Terror, Panic, Confusion, Frenzy, Hatred, all that good stuff. Bring back the Cool stat!

Yeah, psychology in Fantasy was huge especially, and in 40K fear e.g. the DJ's shrieker cannon were super fun.