PDA

View Full Version : A 3rd ed retrospective



redben
01-07-2009, 12:32
I've a blog which so far I've used mainly to write about my historical wargaming along with a bit of Blood Bowl so I've kept myself to those parts of the Warseer forum. I've just started a retrospective of the WFB 3rd ed rulebook on it so I figured I'd give that a mention here in case anyone was interested. I'm sure there's a fair few people here far more familiar with it than I am so feel free to comment and criticise.

It can be found here - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

Gazak Blacktoof
01-07-2009, 12:59
I started playing during 4th edition WHFB/ 2nd edition 40K so that was an interesting read for me. Even though they were no longer used at the time, the boxes the models were sold in still had the four leadership characteristics you described printed on them.

I do wonder how much of an effect the presentation style of books has on the minds of gamers starting out in the hobby.

Nuada
01-07-2009, 13:13
It's an interesting read redben, thanks for that :)

Personally i think overall the basic system has improved since 3rd. There's a few rules i wish they had kept, they'll probably crop up again in 8th. The problem with 7th edition is the army books.

From what i remember psychology really affected your army in 3rd, they've toned it down now. Your whole army used to a panic test when your general died, a unit tested for panic when a friendly unit failed it's break test within 12" (now it's 6"), and others i can't remember. I like the 7th edition version.

For magic you had wizards with 15 spells each, I remember i always used to roll that damn "part water" spell with no water features on the table. The second movement phase, called the reserve phase was a pain

But i do remember some things i prefered. The min/max percentage for characters, r&f and war machines seemed good at the time, but i think nowdays it would be open to abuse (maybe a mix of both would be the answer, 25% max on characters and also keep the max lord/hero choices)

Not sure it served much benefit, but i liked pushing units back 2". I like the rule that said if your unit was 50 or above you're unbreakable. I preferred the 3rd edition charging rules that gave you +2 initiative, GW are -2 int etc, seems to solve all the ASF problems.

Yes I also got a pair of those rose tinted glasses from specsavers :D

Avian
01-07-2009, 13:27
One really good thing about moving magic to the second phase of the game is that it allowed it to be much more supportive, in that you could have spells that improved the shooting or close combat abilities of your units, whereas that would be pointless if you had already had your shooting and close combat phase. And it also make magic movement much more useful, since the opposing player did not immediately have a movement phase of his own.

selone
02-07-2009, 00:58
Can no one stop redben's shameless self promotion of his website, I mean you don't see me linking to www.theafkers.org (undergoing a revamp).

3rd ed was just when I started-
It definetly had some advantages but are you forgetting the sheer deadlock regiment v regiment could be? The same WS hit each other on a 5+ and added to the fact that everyone was stubborn in combat meant that if your troops weren't really hard / caused fear or you had powerful characters/magic you could be there for a while (I saw a beastman vs human combat last 8 combat rounds before.)

It made the ol' fear even better. Especially since you had to take a fear test to shoot at fear causing enemies and there was no unit strength/outnumber back then.

Looking back on it I actually prefer this edition, whilst there were some things I liked (a WS table that actually differentiated more than a I have a better Ws I hit on 3, you hit on 4 type of thing)

It's all coming back now- IIRC you used Int verus illusions? certainly against some spell at least. Who remembers the level 25 wardance lord with exponentially increasing attacks? I managed to get mine to 12 attacks (iirc) a round but apparently with magic and items the sky was the limit (I remember the then GW employe claiming he managed to break the hundred barrier but I can't confirm that). Remember high elves having a unit of literal dragon riders, no dragon princes for those guys - they rode dragon's. Do you remember how crazy greater demon's were back then?

3rd ed really was far too crazy whilst there are parts of the rules that had more depth, it also had a great potential for craziness though it seemed to be a bad thing in the way that say regenerating GG bunker might be.

redben
06-07-2009, 01:44
Updated with a look at the basic movement section of 3rd ed.

http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com

Volker the Mad Fiddler
06-07-2009, 15:20
Wasn't 3rd also where the Summon Elemental spell brought in an elemental whose characteristics were all 10s [or am I remembering something that was never true]?

redben
06-07-2009, 15:34
It may well have been and if it's in the book then I'll get to it eventually :)

redben
08-07-2009, 13:50
Updated with a look at the shooting rules and why Snotlings are a hell of a lot bigger than you think.

http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

Griefbringer
08-07-2009, 14:41
Wasn't 3rd also where the Summon Elemental spell brought in an elemental whose characteristics were all 10s [or am I remembering something that was never true]?

And they were immune to non-magical attacks. However, for every wound they would take, all of their statistics would go down by one.

redben
10-07-2009, 16:09
Updated with a look at the charging rules -

http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

pointyteeth
10-07-2009, 20:30
And they were immune to non-magical attacks. However, for every wound they would take, all of their statistics would go down by one.

Also, instead of one elemental with all 10's, you could make multiple elementals with portioned stats (eg. 2 with all 5's, 10 with all 1's)

I really miss 3rd edition.

redben
17-07-2009, 16:01
Updated with a look at close combat - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

Aladauqs
17-07-2009, 23:48
Definitely a good read, very interesting.

I only started playing late on in 4th and only truly got into the hobby early doors in 5th ed. I do miss my emperor dragons that could fly up into the sky for a turn, then come down, kill things, then fly off again. Epic cheese.

Those were the days, when all wood was red and all metal was bright yellow.

dsw1
18-07-2009, 12:35
Wasn't 3rd also where the Summon Elemental spell brought in an elemental whose characteristics were all 10s [or am I remembering something that was never true]?


And they were immune to non-magical attacks. However, for every wound they would take, all of their statistics would go down by one.


Also, instead of one elemental with all 10's, you could make multiple elementals with portioned stats (eg. 2 with all 5's, 10 with all 1's)

I really miss 3rd edition.

This sounds awesome! I think they should have something like this now but with a few stat changes and rule changes (aka- not s10 all around and not immune to mundane attacks).

It would add back to a whole new level of magic that current magic is lacking, you can only cast so many d6 s4 hits before getting mind numbingly bored.

Edit- thinking more in-depth about this, you could have a statline of 4's and then the one defining characteristic of a 6. E.g. Fire - s6, earth - T6, lightning - A6, water - M6.

Something like that, I may have to send an email to gamesworkshop about this :D (as if they'd read this or even listen). These spells could replace some of crap spells in the lores.

Arnizipal
18-07-2009, 13:37
Elementalism doesn't exist anymore in the current background. Some spells associated with it have gone to the Lore of Life and elementals as creatures have been entirely replaced by daemons or spirits.

dsw1
18-07-2009, 14:18
Elementalism doesn't exist anymore in the current background. Some spells associated with it have gone to the Lore of Life and elementals as creatures have been entirely replaced by daemons or spirits.

I know, but with lores based on elements (lore of life being earth, lore of fire being.. well fire etc etc) it could work out quite well and bring back the whole elemental thing.

Nuada
18-07-2009, 17:31
This sounds awesome! I think they should have something like this now but with a few stat changes and rule changes (aka- not s10 all around and not immune to mundane attacks).

You'd probably like the old rules for daemons then :) Not got the book, but from what i remember....

They were of any alignment, and you made up the appearance. For a good daemon you'd have something like an angel type model, or an avatar, could look like an elemental, etc.

Your choice was lesser or greater, different point cost. Then you rolled the daemons stats (different table for greater and lesser) D6 for each stat, so for example strength can vary from 4 up to 8. All random.

I used to think it was great having a good spirit/daemon with my wood elves (basically Orion became this)

redben
26-07-2009, 17:21
No look at routing yet, been a bit busy with gaming. There's a WFB and BB report on this week.

http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

LonelyPath
26-07-2009, 18:47
One of the things I loved about the earlier editions of WFB was that there were Demons and then there were Daemons, two very different things. IIRC Demons were the results of unholy ppacts and dark magic while Daemons were as we still have them presented now.

Of course, I'm glad the mortal followers of chaos aren't as they were back in the das of the Realms of Chaos books, Nurgle was all but unbeatable with every champaion being able to take a Staff of Nurgle for free whch caused ranged attacks that hit automatically and ignoring all saves. Since they were magical attacks they effected everything, yet could never understand how they effected wraiths, ghosts or skeletons, lol.

Oh yes, and in 3E undead all attacks from undead were treated.as magical and all that fear was deadly.

I loved the magic in 3E also, spells that allowed you to conjur up armour, vorpal hurricaine of chaos which I once managed to cast 12 times in the same magic phase... let's just say that after all the templates moved, we packed up, lol. Oh, and The Storm Riders spell (printed in WD114) which allowed you to summon a number of skeleton chariots before the game began and would enter play at the start of a random turn (and from any table edge so you could rear charge enemies right away if they had hunlines).

Also, to mention chaos once more, let us not forget the lowly Chaos Thug, who was more annoying than anything else since they were so darned cheap in points! Heck, these days a Warrior is more the power of what a Marauder once was.

redben
03-08-2009, 09:42
Updated with a look at routing - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

redben
05-08-2009, 23:46
The reserve move phase - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

redben
10-08-2009, 16:37
A look at Psychology and a battle report - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/

pointyteeth
10-08-2009, 19:03
I was talking about some of the 3rd edition rules with my buddy the other night and we think they need to include the Initiative rules for combat when they update 8th edition. These were that charging didn't necessarily mean you attack first, it just gave you a bonus to your initiative, as did many weapons (especially in certain circumstances). Highest initiative went first. Some gold in that old book.

Great retrospective redben. Keep it coming

forthegloryofkazadekrund
10-08-2009, 19:06
I always liked the push back rule, i would like to see something similar in 8th with units being pushed back = lost combat by (max 3") if they pass thier LD test, otherwise they rout as normal


Edited to add to the sentence from if

redben
10-08-2009, 19:08
Just out of curiousity, does anyone still play games using the 3rd ed rules?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
10-08-2009, 19:12
Just out of curiousity, does anyone still play games using the 3rd ed rules?

Good question, it would be an interesting experiment to play a game and do a battle report on here just to show off what the rules were like in a 3rd ed battle

Ixquic
10-08-2009, 19:13
I was talking about some of the 3rd edition rules with my buddy the other night and we think they need to include the Initiative rules for combat when they update 8th edition. These were that charging didn't necessarily mean you attack first, it just gave you a bonus to your initiative, as did many weapons (especially in certain circumstances). Highest initiative went first. Some gold in that old book.

Great retrospective redben. Keep it coming

They should do that and remove the ASF rule entirely. Speed of weapon use should indicate how quickly you attack. Dwarves going before a Vampire or Chaos Lord without magical ASF is silly. I'd be ok with some weapons granting a bonus to initiative as long as it's nothing silly like "+10 Initiative LOL!" to get around the removal of ASF by some fanboy army book writer.

If you always go in initiave order typically things that supposed to be fast like Elves, assasins, Slannesh stuff won't need a rule to make sure they go first.

redben
10-08-2009, 19:15
Myself and Selone are trying to go a step further than that and play a game in every edition. We've pretty much got everything we need. The only thing holding us back at the moment is I've got a DoC army (I know, I know) and would need some Beastmen and Chaos Warriors to round it out for the earlier editions.

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 19:19
I always liked the push back rule, i would like to see something similar in 8th with units being pushed back = lost combat by (max 3")The pushback rule sounds interesting. Is it a combination of CR and mass?

redben
10-08-2009, 19:37
If you go onto my blog and look at the 'WFB 3rd ed - Hitting' entry it's explained but essentially if you lose combat you get pushed back 2" and the enemy follows up. If your unit has lost 25% or more of it's starting numbers then it takes a rout test as well.

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 19:57
Using that rule would mean no static combat resolution.

redben
10-08-2009, 20:03
Do you mean you can't break an enemy without killing any of them? If you do that is true and I do mention it in the entry. I don't think it's a bad thing.

Condottiere
10-08-2009, 20:11
That's what I mean - I think the rule was changed to get a quicker resolution of unit combats.

redben
11-08-2009, 07:45
There were a few things changed to achieve that, chief among modifying the Ld test down by how much lost combat by and auto-killing units who can't outrun their pursuers. Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing depends on whether you like WFB being turned into a fast-paced skirmish game.

xragg
11-08-2009, 08:33
Warhammer ancients still uses a fallback rule ("fall back in good order"), which is one of the rules that make ancients alot of fun for me. FBIGO lets a unit that lost combat and failed its break test to fall back 1d6". The opponent may pursue 1d6" if they want, catching the enemy though only means they count as charging again in the next combat turn. Not everyone has FBIGO. Basically, elite units like Roman legonaires gain it through the "veteran" skill. Alot of horde units also have this ability through "warband" skill, but they must outnumber their enemy 2:1 to FBIGO. Otherwise, many of the rules of ancients and fantasy parallel each, go figure since they are written by the same company.

*dont quote me on the specifics of this rule as I havent played the game all summer, but the basic concept is right.

Condottiere
11-08-2009, 09:21
There are a lot of interesting things that can be squeezed out of WB's other products, but my feeling is that they are trying to idiot-proof Fantasy.

redben
19-08-2009, 17:37
Panic - http://imperatorcarnifex.wordpress.com/