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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Second edition was a war game trying to be a role playing game or a role playing game trying to be a war game which is what created all of its problems. Third edition had the benefit of knowing exactly what it was and the people who really detest 3rd edition are the ones who got their role playing game left behind.

I think 2nd - especially in the stripped down mode linked in my sig - was closer to a true wargame than anything that came after. It features real wargame mechanics, like hidden units, overwatch, and important decision points like whether to conduct an actual assault or to throw grenades.

Seriously, one can't really have a squad-level game without some form of overwatch. Third edition didn't, and so I rate it as an inferior wargame design.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

A.T. wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Second edition was a war game trying to be a role playing game

It was a small squad-scale game trying to be a larger wargame.

Everything was built to be played model by model with the squad stuff taped on top.

That's a better way to put it. Hats off and all that.

I should have consulted with you first about establishing what criteria actually counts a war game as a war game. I honestly think overwatch is one of the most garbage tier mechanics in the game and having it come back was one of the death knells of me ever playing modern 40K again.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The lessons of both 2nd and 3rd are the same. Play with like minded people, play with enough terrain, play with mission variation.

You've just shown that they aren't. You could spam 3rd edition with little more than the contents of two starter boxes, some rhinos and black and white paint. To do what you did meant blowing a fortune on models. Not even remotely the same thing.

No matter the game, the edition, the genre, or how much one spends/doesn't spend on models, that's always been the lesson you should learn.
And the sooner you've learned it? The happier everyone will be.

And if you don't think people spent fortunes on models back then.....

Is it at all possible for us to agree that we all find different things we like and dislike in different editions? Just because somebody doesn't like the same thing as you doesn't make you right and them wrong.
Personally I detest the competition mindset as I feel it doesn't have the narrative or storytelling aspect I enjoy, it's too much about "best" units rather than most fun to play.
Note this is only my feeling so there's no need for personal attacks which seem to be happening more often to people recently. I don't try to tell people how to play and I certainly won't listen to anyone telling me I'm wrong.
My tuppence worth on the subject matter is that I also heartily disliked 3rd as I found it bland and totally without much in the way of gaming flavour. I know some won't agree but that's up to them, it doesn't bother me at all. Each to their own.

I'm going to quickly flag one advantage 3rd ed had over 2nd, assuming my memory is correct, and that's that all the dice you needed came in the box.

2nd used most of a polyhedral set in various combinations for armour penetration, but (if I'm remembering correctly) didn't include such a set in the starter box, nor did GW sell them in-store.

If you, like me, were starting back in '96, this was before the t'internet got going, and as such it was difficult to know where to go to get these weird dice - especially if the local staff didnae know (or wouldn't say) if there were any local shops stocking them anywhere.

With 3rd just being d6 + scatter + artillery dice, at least all of those came in the starter box...

 Dysartes wrote:
2nd used most of a polyhedral set in various combinations for armour penetration, but (if I'm remembering correctly) didn't include such a set in the starter box, nor did GW sell them in-store.

Yeah, it had a handful of white and red D6s, and the scatter, artillery and sustained fire dice. The others you had to get elsewhere.

Even here in Oz where game stores were few and far between, they weren't hard to find, though. Plenty of places sold D&D.

My general view is that if your game is gonna use funky dice, you should include them in your starter set - even if it is only one of each type.

"2nd wasn't broken if you remove these rules, and because hardly anyone can afford the broken builds" doesn't sound like a particularly strong endorsement of the sentiment.

At least if the broken builds are readily available it makes it fairer for the majority if more prone to mirror matches.

Plus, if playing old rules with modern models, hormagaunts etc are readily available nowadays.

Yeah as a kid in rural Ireland I had no idea what a D12 was or where I was supposed to get one - I'd only vaguely heard of Dungeons and Dragons back then. We approximated the correct numbers with D6.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok . . . But if "abuse" is your qualifier the same could be said about the entirety of 2nd edition, despite what Commissar is saying. 2nd was very easy to abuse, and I'd argue easier than 3rd.

I'm going to call you out on this, because it's manifestly not true, and you're going to prove it for me.

Ok, I'll do you one better. See below vvv

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The battlefields all had less terrain . . . so the formula was simply to load up on AP (including Razorbacks), conduct a slow retreat until the enemy was within reach of Captain Whirlingdeath and that's the game.

Tadaa!! There's your problem! If all you need to do is back up and shoot, you've got a terrain issue.

Hormaguants were famously only available in metal. Same with Discs of Tzeentch. Unless you were spitting out proxies like Weimar Republic Reichmarks, you spent a fortune to do that. This is not the "own" you think it is.

Multiple invuln saves stacked on characters, walls of Rhinos, Lascannon Spam on Mega Armored Orks, Plasma missile fusillades, dirty, dirty Exarchs, Pulsa Rokkit spam, Jump Pack lvl 4 psyker Inquisitors casting Vortex through units, even an army spamming Techmarines to act as individual model screens, because you had to target the closest unit. We tore the hell out of that system.

Yeah, that's your other admission: you were fully embracing the WAAC concept. The thing was, you had to work a lot harder for it in 2nd, didn't you? How much did all those Techmarines cost?

The lessons of both 2nd and 3rd are the same. Play with like minded people, play with enough terrain, play with mission variation.

You've just shown that they aren't. You could spam 3rd edition with little more than the contents of two starter boxes, some rhinos and black and white paint. To do what you did meant blowing a fortune on models. Not even remotely the same thing.

I'm not sure a good defense of a game is "It was pay to win". If the game breaks down because players decide to use proxies (we often did), or a shop owner buys his models at cost rather than retail, or because a model becomes cheaper in $$ (I am the proud owner of 90 Hormagaunts now, is 2nd not a good game for me?) well it's an odd position to take.

And of course other things like Inquisitors, Assassins, Chaplains on Bikes, Wolf Guard, Plasma and Blind Grenades/Missiles were not heavy on the wallet.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
Oh, you've got a level 4 psyker who is going to wreak havoc with Ultimate Force? Say hello to my Demonic Attack card, smart guy. Oh, you have a Vortex Grenade? Meet my Detonator.

That's a little like saying "my counter-tactic is to roll boxcars on 2d6". The Demonic Attack card was one card out of (I think)36, with an equal chance of me picking it up instead of you. And I don't think I ever once encountered a Vortex Detonator despite fairly consistently bringing that pesky Chaplain on a Bike, because Detonators were expensive and had a limited range.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The reason 2nd was balanced was because everything was so deadly that you couldn't reliably munchkin your way to victory.

Let me put it this way: in all my games of 2nd (including recent ones), I have never seen armies so thoroughly curb-stomped on turn one as I did in 3rd, and apparently this practice continues to the present day.

Younger folks may not realize this, but every army had a thing called a Strategy Rating, which was added to the die roll to determined who got to move first. Space Marines got a 5, Tyranids a 1, and so on. So what this meant was that both sides set up knowing who was likely to go first.

That was okay, because units could start hidden, terrain was much more effective, and so on.

It was 3rd edition that introduced the alpha strike, which was another reason for me to quit.

I can recall a number of 2nd ed games that ended in a capitulation after my first round of firing. Two of them were in tournament settings. And two that I recall of them were literally Opposition deploys in hiding - I go on Overwatch my first turn - Opposition moves - I fire my overwatch - Opposition finishes turn - I fire again in my turn - opposition forfeits. In short: they hide, I wait, I fire in their turn and my turn, and they were done.

Early curbstombing via heavy weapons is not a game system thing, it's a terrain thing. In no way was poor terrain limited to 3rd, or were WAAC players and cheesy lists limited to 3rd.

 Just Tony wrote:
I should have consulted with you first about establishing what criteria actually counts a war game as a war game. I honestly think overwatches one of the most garbage tear mechanics in the game and having it come back.Which one of the death knows of me ever playing modern forty k again

I agree that terminology matters. As someone who came to 40k from the hard-core wargaming hobby (pushing little cardboard squares around hexsheets), I consider something like overwatch essential to squad-level combat. If a unit moves across my front in the open, my troops should get to shoot at it, regardless of whose "turn" it is. Sometimes it's called "reaction fire" or "opportunity fire," but every serious tactical/platoon level wargame has it (alternating activation lets units "hold" in a similar manner).

Similarly, may barrage of Insectum7 clearly was a bit wide of the mark because my point wasn't that 2nd was impossible to metagame with WAAC armies, it was that it was not easy. Buying 100 hormaguants was not "easy," it was rather expensive.

Creating lop-sided armies in 3rd was easy. Just add some black and white paint to your space marines and you're good to go!

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tadaa!! There's your problem! If all you need to do is back up and shoot, you've got a terrain issue.

Terrain was pointless in 3rd, serving only as an LOS obstruction or movement obstacle. Trying to conform to terrain would leave you vulnerable to sweeping advance, which was far more consequential than getting a 6+ save you didn't even need against heavy bolters.

You can look at the WD magazines and buzz back into forum archives to see how armies fought each other - out in the open, which GW said was the idea. Faster gameplay, and less emphasis on shooting, more emphasis on assault combat. Again, those were the stated goals and they were achieved.

When I switched over to IG and lost the huge boost of power armor, my troops formed in the open, in ranked lines like I was at Waterloo. Intervals were essential because each line needed the one volley it got under sweeping advance.

Oh, and because ordnance can't move and shoot, armor became fixed defenses. GW started pushing tanks with heavy weapons as the main armament as a solution but that left the sponsons redundant, and so those disappeared, creating a weak, pathetic armored force, that couldn't actually outrun infantry that made contact with it.

If you were a treadhead, 3rd was an nightmare.

I can recall a number of 2nd ed games that ended in a capitulation after my first round of firing. Two of them were in tournament settings. And two that I recall of them were literally Opposition deploys in hiding - I go on Overwatch my first turn - Opposition moves - I fire my overwatch - Opposition finishes turn - I fire again in my turn - opposition forfeits. In short: they hide, I wait, I fire in their turn and my turn, and they were done.

I ran into that as well, always against first-time players. Overwatch caused a lot of peoples' brains to lock up, but once they understood its limitations (same targeting rules apply, less accurate, you get to shoot next), it was used in its proper place.

Did those games use mission cards? I find those an essential part of the game, because if it's just "sit there and plink for points," you're not really doing anything meaningful. A mission makes it worthwhile to lose a tank while trying to force a flank or take an objective and 3rd incorporated these directly into the scenarios, which was a good thing.

There is no debate that 2nd was a more mentally demanding game in terms of player decisions because there were more options to chose from. Even stripping out a lot of the special rules kludge (individual jump pack scatter on every move???), the core rules forced you to think harder. There's a telling passage from the Orks codex that warns players against simply shouting "WAAAGH!" and racing across the tabletop because the weapon lethality will do them in. Some form of tactical movement is essential.

All that changed in 3rd. Direct frontal assault worked, and the first turn was a huge advantage. In 2nd, it was often better to go last, because you could sneak onto the objective, push across a line or get a last shot at killing a character.

I shall conclude by humbly acknowledging your dedication, because if you actually bought all that metal, your commitment to the game was epic. I should have enjoyed going toe to toe with you back in the day, and reading your tactics and force compositions, I can't help imagining how I might have countered them.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
All that changed in 3rd. Direct frontal assault worked, and the first turn was a huge advantage. In 2nd, it was often better to go last, because you could sneak onto the objective, push across a line or get a last shot at killing a character.

All of those things you could do by going first in 2nd edition.

5e was the odd one with its 'only the last turn counts' objectives, along with the second player setting up with full knowledge and counter-positioning against the opponent (whereas 2nd ed was blind setup). Increased firepower throughout later codex releases pulled things back toward the gunline but second turn was always strong and further aided by changes to rules like rapid fire.

It had many if its own issues of course.

Oh my God, we get it.You really dislike Black Templars. Wake me up when you're willing to discuss the other ninety eight percent of the forces used in third edition...


Now that I got that out of my system, let's point to your other bizarre fixation about third edition: the first turn alpha strike charge. Other than Blood Angels, what armies could make a first turn charge in any mission other than Cleanse or Night Fight? Go on, I'll wait.

You also have a rather massive problem pointing out things that you claim were broken and only doable in third edition. Yet several examples have been pointed to the exact same things being broken in second edition, or in similar manners broken in second edition using those edition-specific game rules.

I'm gonna once again default to the fact that something you enjoyed doing or using got unfairly in your mind affected by the rules change, and you slammed your feet down to say "Argleblargle it's the worst." I will not personally attack second edition because the Crimson Fists went from a founding chapter to a successor chapter. I will attack it, however, because the Army structures were absolute pants and every single possible exploit was baked into do the rules, meaning that any player could choose to run the most elite stuff in their list would with no compunction to do anything otherwise except for the Fluff Mongers. You'll notice that I will not disparage anyone choosing to play that edition and who enjoys that stuff though I will disparage the edition itself. I will simply choose to play the edition I prefer with people who prefer to play it.

 Just Tony wrote:
Other than Blood Angels, what armies could make a first turn charge in any mission other than Cleanse or Night Fight?

Chaos, orks, harlequins, daemonhunters. A lot of them were fairly marginal and limited to specific units though and the errata did away with one of the chaos options (the infiltrating, 12" move 12" assault lord) though i'm not sure they ever restricted the infiltration/jump pack combo.

So all of those armies could execute a twenty four inch plus move, deployment, and charge combination? I'm flipping through my books and failing to find those combos. The one I was most skeptical of was in the Ork codex and the most they can do is gain 3 inches to their overall travel. So it remains that first turn charges by the player getting first turn are extremely limited and is drastically unfair to hold an entire edition as bad simply because there's an outlier.

 Just Tony wrote:
You also have a rather massive problem pointing out things that you claim were broken and only doable in third edition. Yet several examples have been pointed to the exact same things being broken in second edition, or in similar manners broken in second edition using those edition-specific game rules.

The title of this thread is "Why I hated 3rd Ed 40k." I am merely staying on topic.

As for some of the exact same things being broken in 2nd, that's more of an indictment on 3rd, isn't it? Why didn't they fix it?

Not only wasn't it fixed, it was made worse by turning tanks into pillboxes and wrecking the iconic image of a Leman Russ rolling forward, firing all it's weapons. Nope, can't do that any more. The special ability of Space Marines to double-tap with their bolters? Gone. Rapid fire became just another weapon type.

And then there was AP, a horrible mechanic that caused rampant army list abuse because it was impossible to fairly price it into the system. How much is an S4 AP3 weapon worth? Well, against Orks, 'Nids, IG, not all that much. But it was pure gold against power armor. Conversely, a heavy bolter is pretty effective against everyone but power armor, so what should it cost?

Oh, the long-winded debates on THAT particular subject.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
You also have a rather massive problem pointing out things that you claim were broken and only doable in third edition. Yet several examples have been pointed to the exact same things being broken in second edition, or in similar manners broken in second edition using those edition-specific game rules.

The title of this thread is "Why I hated 3rd Ed 40k." I am merely staying on topic.

As for some of the exact same things being broken in 2nd, that's more of an indictment on 3rd, isn't it? Why didn't they fix it?

Not only wasn't it fixed, it was made worse by turning tanks into pillboxes and wrecking the iconic image of a Leman Russ rolling forward, firing all it's weapons. Nope, can't do that any more. The special ability of Space Marines to double-tap with their bolters? Gone. Rapid fire became just another weapon type.

And then there was AP, a horrible mechanic that caused rampant army list abuse because it was impossible to fairly price it into the system. How much is an S4 AP3 weapon worth? Well, against Orks, 'Nids, IG, not all that much. But it was pure gold against power armor. Conversely, a heavy bolter is pretty effective against everyone but power armor, so what should it cost?

Oh, the long-winded debates on THAT particular subject.

Ah yes, because AP Mods affect everyone equally.

The humble Lasgun's AP-1 increased damage against a 6+ Cultist by 20%. And against a 2+ model (not a Terminator, since they rolled 2d6 on a 3+) it increased damage by 100%.
That's the same, right?

Also, Terminator saves. 2d6 for each save roll meant that, if you were to roll a lot of saves with AP values from -1 to -8, you could not fast roll with one die rerolling.
3+ on 2d6 is pretty easy-roll 1d6 for each save. Any 1s get rerolled, and only if there's a second 1 do you take a wound.
12+ on 2d6 is also easy-roll 1d6 for each save. Any 6s get rerolled, and only on a second 6 do you avoid damage.
But any other value (well, besides the 2+ Abaddon had) could not be solved with one die per save.

So, every edition has its ups and downs.

Can we have a discussion on what we'd cherry pick from every edition to make the best game possible?

Stuff I actually liked in 3rd edition: Moral High Ground. Pretty insignificant rule, but I liked it. Disabling vehicles: this should also happen with monsters. The different flavors of missions in the back of the book. Some of how terrain worked.

4th-5th, some of how terrain worked (area terrain that is). I like characters joining and leaving squads.

7th: no templates,

7th didn't ditch templates.
8th did.

The AP system was an issue, because as covered it consigned too many weapons to “meh” status.

S5 AP4 had a wider appeal than S6 AP-, so S6 AP- was rarely fielded.

With Save Modifiers, you can explore different niches.

Consider the Hellgun. In 3rd, it was….a Bolter. Essentially it was a Bolter. When it went to AP3 in a later edition, it was overly good, as it could do massive damage to Marines, Tau Battlesuits etc.

Now, introduce Save Modifiers again? And it’s no longer All Or Nothing. S3 -2 occupies a very different niche to S4 -1, because that AP elevates it beyond its humble S3.

I prefer the binary system-but I’d’ve liked 3rd-7th to have included a High Impact (X) rule, where X is the penalty to save rolls.

So a Heavy Bolter might be S5 AP4, while an Autocannon could be S7 AP4 with High Impact 1.

I just prefer the granularity (a term I hate, as it’s an overused buzzword) of an AP system.

Even when done wonky, it’s easier to tweak into some semblance of competence.

Likewise I missed the range modifiers of 2nd Ed. Granted in a game much bigger than 2nd Ed’s overall scale they can become clunky, but they were another way to differentiate weapons and units.

Though let’s also be honest that 2nd Ed just didn’t have the variety of weapons 3rd Ed had. And that mattered. A Lasgun was a Lasgun was a Lasgun. Whether carried by a Guardsman, Guardian or Swooping Hawk, it was the same weapon profile. Likewise Bolters were a gun shared by Marines, Chaos Marines and Orks.

Thinking on Lasguns? They really benefitted from their -1 Save Modifier. So they’d ignore Flak armour, and could put a dent in all infantry units barring Terminators with just a smidge of luck,

When that granularity (ewww) was removed? It did affect how people approached the game. If you didn’t squeeze in as much AP3 and Power Weapons as possible, you were just at a disadvantage against Marines.

Consider the application of a Heavy Bolter, and a Lascannon. In 2nd Ed, both had their roles. Thanks to its -2 save modifier and D4 wounds? The relatively humble Heavy Bolter was a real work horse when it came to infantry and monsters. As I think I mentioned before, it was my go-to shooter for messing up my mate’s Avatar. The Lascannon of course was your bread and butter anti-tank and anti-monster, due to long range, high strength, decent damage and impressive save modifier. But with just a single shot, it was largely wasted being used against non-Terminator type infantry. Though a wee snipe at an exposed enemy character could reap dividends.

In 3rd? The Lascannon was just better. Sure, it could only delete a single Marine or Terminator at a time, but by comparison the Heavy Bolter had a far from negligible chance of doing nothing, because it couldn’t penetrate 2+ or 3+. And against Monstrous Creatures, even if I did force a wound. It was just the one wound.

So, points allowing? You were just better off taking that Lascannon, because its damage output against all targets was just better than a Heavy Bolter. It had a ubiquity granted because the AP system was bobbins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and in 3rd Ed thanks to Instant Death, the Lascannon could still blat exposed characters if the opportunity presented itself.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I just prefer the granularity (a term I hate, as it’s an overused buzzword) of an AP system.

Even when done wonky, it’s easier to tweak into some semblance of competence.

Likewise I missed the range modifiers of 2nd Ed. Granted in a game much bigger than 2nd Ed’s overall scale they can become clunky, but they were another way to differentiate weapons and units.

Though let’s also be honest that 2nd Ed just didn’t have the variety of weapons 3rd Ed had. And that mattered. A Lasgun was a Lasgun was a Lasgun. Whether carried by a Guardsman, Guardian or Swooping Hawk, it was the same weapon profile. Likewise Bolters were a gun shared by Marines, Chaos Marines and Orks.

Thinking on Lasguns? They really benefitted from their -1 Save Modifier. So they’d ignore Flak armour, and could put a dent in all infantry units barring Terminators with just a smidge of luck,

When that granularity (ewww) was removed? It did affect how people approached the game. If you didn’t squeeze in as much AP3 and Power Weapons as possible, you were just at a disadvantage against Marines.

Consider the application of a Heavy Bolter, and a Lascannon. In 2nd Ed, both had their roles. Thanks to its -2 save modifier and D4 wounds? The relatively humble Heavy Bolter was a real work horse when it came to infantry and monsters. As I think I mentioned before, it was my go-to shooter for messing up my mate’s Avatar. The Lascannon of course was your bread and butter anti-tank and anti-monster, due to long range, high strength, decent damage and impressive save modifier. But with just a single shot, it was largely wasted being used against non-Terminator type infantry. Though a wee snipe at an exposed enemy character could reap dividends.

In 3rd? The Lascannon was just better. Sure, it could only delete a single Marine or Terminator at a time, but by comparison the Heavy Bolter had a far from negligible chance of doing nothing, because it couldn’t penetrate 2+ or 3+. And against Monstrous Creatures, even if I did force a wound. It was just the one wound.

So, points allowing? You were just better off taking that Lascannon, because its damage output against all targets was just better than a Heavy Bolter. It had a ubiquity granted because the AP system was bobbins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and in 3rd Ed thanks to Instant Death, the Lascannon could still blat exposed characters if the opportunity presented itself.

I think you are ignoring weapons cost here. An Imperial Guard heavy bolter kills a Marine in power armour at ~80% efficacy compared to the lascannon if shooting a Marine in the open (0.33 wounds vs 0.41), but you can also take 2 or 2.5* heavy bolters per lascannon (in infantry squads).So at that point, 2+ heavy bolters is killing more Marines than a single lascannon, and don't lose any efficiency if the Marines take cover, unlike the lascannon fire. You lose anti-tank capability as a trade-off but a heavy bolter does synergise better with lasguns.

Obviously characters and terminators swing towards the lascannon being better, but that doesn't make the heavy bolter useless. Both can have a place in the list (especially if your next opponent is Orks or something where AP4 is sufficient for most targets).


*The lascannon went up 5pts in the second codex.

Edit: even against Terminators, lascannon were only more points efficient prior to them receiving the 5+ invulnerable save. After that, heavy bolters are more efficient per point against every non-character infantry in 3rd I can think of except meganobz, Crisis battlesuits (without shield generators) and Broadside battlesuits. In all three of these latter cases it is the instant death on the lascannons making the difference on 2W models.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Can we have a discussion on what we'd cherry pick from every edition to make the best game possible?

It strongly depends on what kind of game you are working towards.

Prohammer for example tries to bring in a lot of rules so you've got all books from 3rd to 7th covered, superheavies and forgeworld stuff, some of the latter edition rules like overwatch and snapshots, etc. At the other end of the spectrum you stripped down rules or re-worked (i.e. different dice) rules, etc.

 Just Tony wrote:
So all of those armies could execute a twenty four inch plus move, deployment, and charge combination?

They were outliers. Blood Angels just happened to be an entire army of outliers.
I can't see anything offhand in chaos 3.5 preventing jump troops from infiltrating. Orks could get a 16" vehicle move, 2" disembark, 6" charge - plus an inch or so by starting with the vehicle side on and rotating at the end. Harlies had a teleporter and a 12"/12" character, daemonhosts had among other things a first turn deepstrike and charge (entirely at random). Off the top of my head.

One thing I forgot that I actually liked, the Initiative stat in a model's statline. Also, while I know having weapon skill be a set number is faster, comparing two dueling guys WS does seem more realistic to me.

Well, you did have Initiative in 2nd Ed. It was mostly used for tests, but in a drawn combat the highest Initiative broke the tie.

Another thing I found much too simplified in 3rd was vehicle damage. Not necessarily the table and loss of Datafax Cards. But the D6 + S.

That, like the AP system, altered how weapons were viewed. You wanted solid anti-tank? You went with Lascannons. Sure Multi-meltas could get 2D6 + S and really slag stuff. But….only within 12”. On a move or fire weapon was….not especially useful. Krak Missiles at S8 were decent enough because they had solid range. But once Landraiders and Monoliths became available? Soon lost some appeal to the Lascannon, who at least had some chance of a Penetrating hit.

Any wargame is gonna boil down to Paper/Scissors/Stone to some degree. But with 3rd Ed removing the subtle niches we had in 2nd Ed, it became overly predictable. Which again fed into metagaming.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tadaa!! There's your problem! If all you need to do is back up and shoot, you've got a terrain issue.

Terrain was pointless in 3rd, serving only as an LOS obstruction or movement obstacle.

Those both sound like pretty important points in their own right. A couple of simple hills blocking LoS can drastically shake up where units need to be positioned.

Trying to conform to terrain would leave you vulnerable to sweeping advance, which was far more consequential than getting a 6+ save you didn't even need against heavy bolters.

So... all of your terrain was bushes, high grass, crop fields, fences, or railings? Those are the 6+ types of cover. That sounds like pretty light terrain. Everything more substantial is 5+ or 4+ saves that are more meaningful. In addition, I'm not really seeing why units cannot be spaced out in cover either, especially as difficult terrain halved the sweeping advance distance and also dropped the initiative of any models without assault grenades.

You can look at the WD magazines and buzz back into forum archives to see how armies fought each other - out in the open, which GW said was the idea. Faster gameplay, and less emphasis on shooting, more emphasis on assault combat. Again, those were the stated goals and they were achieved.

When I switched over to IG and lost the huge boost of power armor, my troops formed in the open, in ranked lines like I was at Waterloo. Intervals were essential because each line needed the one volley it got under sweeping advance.

Why does each line only get a single volley? Units advancing into contact could be shot at normally in the following shooting phase before the melee began proper. Every line could shoot the advancing unit, so lines further back would get multiple volleys.

So, I'm sitting in front of the 3rd edition rulebook. The vast majority of the photographs show armies in dense terrain, including a rather nice trench system. They also feature lots of scatter terrain in the more open areas. Several of the missions in the book are assaults on fortifications (which are terrain). All of the 3rd edition battleforces included terrain, as well as the starter*. All of this terrain was also 5+ saves, not 6+.

One of the early codices in 3rd was Codex: Catachans, featuring extra rules for super-dense jungle terrain. Codex: Cityfight came later with specific rules for urban combat (this was really a separate, related system so not going to dwell on it much).

The battle reports that come to mind most from 3rd edition are the linked reports from the 3rd War for Armageddon global campaign and the similar reports from the Eye of Terror. Both of these featured dense urban terrain on the main battlefield, and had varying levels of terrain on the supporting battles to suit the theme (the ash wastes battlefield was much more open than the space hulk battlefield, for example). I can't think of any battle reports that didn't feature terrain in an important way.

I'm really not seeing where 3rd was intended to be played on planet bowling ball. Obviously planet bowling ball favours firepower over all else.


*I think part of the reason 5th edition had an issue with leafblower lists is not just TLOS, but also that GW stopped selling terrain in army boxes. Lots of people just didn't bother to buy terrain separately, which lead to sparser terrain set ups. The 5th edition starter also lacked terrain, unlike the previous two.

Further thoughts on 3rds lack of granularity? It only took one wee boost to make a middling gun suddenly really good.

Consider Chaos Space Marine Havocs with Tank Hunters. That bonus made Autocannons really, really flexible.

A unit of 5 had solid range, solid strength against Infantry, and a pretty decent rate of fire en massed. But, would struggle against Battle Tanks.

Give them that +1 penetration against Tanks, and suddenly they could merrily glance even a Landraider (but not a Monolith, who’s own special rule negated Tank Hunters, I think) into oblivion, whereas before they couldn’t do diddly to it.

When a single perk like that fundamentally changes a weapon’s ubiquity, your system is probably overly simplistic.

Later editions (maybe as early as fourth?) brought damage bonuses against tanks if you had AP1 or AP2..maybe AP3 as well? And yes that brought in some much need nuance. But 3rd didn’t. And that’s why 3rd was rubbish.

There was nothing more iconic about the Tyranids than small units of tall warriors directing the lesser yet far more numerous creatures of the swarm, while also being "special forces" due to their excellent variety of melee and ranged weapons. In 3rd edition Warriors could be taken as either HQ or Elite units, but that has been lost with the usual run-of-the-mill big powerful characters and singular lieutenants.

On the other hand, the Tyranids have gained a lot of cool characters in return, although the Prime thats been leading my swarm has been demoted. Damn. I suppose I'll just have to treat myself to a new HQ character or two...

Looking at 10th edition index for Tyranids and the Prime is just another warrior in all but name - not even an extra wound or attack to speak of. Does it have any benefits in the codex?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


So, points allowing? You were just better off taking that Lascannon, because its damage output against all targets was just better than a Heavy Bolter. It had a ubiquity granted because the AP system was.

Fortunately someone else has dug into how the heavy bolter was more points efficient at taking down marines than lascannons, so the weapons were actually fulfilling the same niches across those editions despite doing it somewhat differently, so I won’t dig into that.

However I will talk about this particular point, as it’s something you and I have butted heads about before: Your feelings are not how math works.

The heavy bolter, as stated, was actually better into all appropriate targets than the lascannon and even so into marines (in that case because you’d get a higher ratio of heavy bolters for less points). It doesn’t really matter how you feel about it, because that’s just how the math boils down. Furthermore, I find it extremely telling that your gripes are always about how one weapon was only useful in a particular and then unrecoverable trash in the next, as if this is a result of the overhauling of all of the systems involved. Pinning this on the 3rd editon systems (ap changes and such) rubs me the wrong way because it’s demonstrating false.

So let’s talk about 30k 2.0.

The new HH edition, which I know you’re familiar with, upped the heavy bolter from 3 shots to 4. This single change made heavy bolters more effective into marines (or the 1w 3+ variety) than lascannons at a 1-1 ratio. A single heavy bolter has a better chance of killing a tactical marine than a single lascannon; though the lascannon shot is definitely more lethal than a single heavy bolter shot.

I bring this up because we have ABSOLUTELY seen weapon profiles change between editions of 40k without systems overhauls. So even if your point were correct, that the 3rd edition heavy bolter were worse ppm than a lascannon into all targets (a fairly hilarious claim when orks and guard exist, but I digress), using that as a point of why everything that came after 2nd was worse is just bizarre, because such a problem was absolutely fixable between editions or even during them, if it had been a problem at all.

Now whether or not GW would make such changes or recognize their need is definitely a valid argument. It’s also an argument that applies equally if not more so to 2nd edition, as even it’s most vocal advocates in this thread have admitted that the game needed multiple gentlemen’s agreements, the tossing out of a few cards, and a price cap on how much money you could spend on an army (as and an unwillingness to convert) to avoid being a hilariously imbalanced dumpster fire. So GW hasn’t ever been great at balance.

I don't understand the nature of the complaint to begin with. Yeah, the anti-light/medium infantry gun was about as effective as the anti-vehicle/monster gun when used against heavy infantry, while being significantly cheaper (and obviously much better against anything with a 4+ save or worse). What's wrong with that?

The real loser there was the autocannon, and there were a number of ways that could have been addressed.

If anything, the tendency to compare every weapon's performance against MEQs just highlights how much of a warping effect the predominance of 3+ saves has on the game- something that the switch back to modifiers improved but did not fix.