PDA

View Full Version : Was there anything at all you liked about 3rd?



Wolfblade670
29-01-2010, 10:07
I have often heard 3rd remembered as the worst of all the editions of 40k over the years, mostly as it was oversimplified. Does anyone here have anything fond they remember about 3rd? Or is it a black stain on the hobby better left unremembered?

wilsongrahams
29-01-2010, 10:12
They released new models... I got new Death Company for my BA during 3rd!

I hated third. I kept playing 2nd edition until now (a month ago) because I dislked 3rd and needed tempting back over twelve years or so...

Souleater
29-01-2010, 10:19
There was no sense of 'OH, gods, I'm going to die' when the Eldar psychic phase rolled around.

Seriously, it was quicker to play than 2nd but 2nd was a better game, IMHO. JUst a little too hero focused.

Bloodknight
29-01-2010, 10:23
Black spot, I'd say. It started out as a super-streamlined game with some ridiculous rules (especially the CC rules that made veteran sergeants etc. and models not in base contact basically useless and also made assault units far too fast (2d6 overrun, consolidation into new combats etc.), also the transport rules sucked - they were just too useful, especially Rhinos and Serpents), and after a while there were so many army lists and updates that you'd need a ring binder with reference sheets and FAQs just to keep up (towards the end there were over 30 army lists for SM and CSM, and more than half of that weren't even close to balance). They also changed the vehicle and CC rules mid-edition.

I liked 3rd even less than 4th, but I enjoy 2nd and 5th a lot.

The only rule that I miss from 3rd is the Crossfire rule, that added quite some tactics.

TheShadowCow
29-01-2010, 10:24
I still look upon 4th and 5th as "3rd but with feeback", so on that respect 3rd wasn't entirely a bad thing. That said, there was plenty wrong with it. If your unit was either an assault monstrosity or a long-ranged stationary firebase then you were golden, but if you were ljust about anything else then you were going to get stomped.

It was an age when a fellow I used to know would run a 10+ Death Company that would butcher 30 Termagants a turn, and Sweeping Advance right into the next unit with no hope of being stopped :p

Thud
29-01-2010, 11:08
Dunno. I started as 3rd was released so most of my memories from that time are tainted by nostalgia.

totgeboren
29-01-2010, 11:13
It was a nice change of pace to not have to suffer through the Eldar psychic phase, also, being able to kill off enemy heroes with a huge amount of standard troops was also refreshing.
I tried doing a Chaos cult (crappy humans) in 2:ed, but it was impossible to do such a thematic army with the 2:ed rules and have a reasonable chance of winning.

In 3:ed, this was much more viable. :)

Now its turning back again, where my lone Chaos Lord can wipe out 30 gaunts in one turn and such. I can't say I like that particular turn of the rules. Feels like a step in the wrong direction.

on the other hand, after playing about 10 games of 3:ed, I stopped playing 40k. The rule were that bad.

AFnord
29-01-2010, 12:17
The only rule that I miss from 3rd is the Crossfire rule, that added quite some tactics.
Crossfire is one of the rules that i miss as well, although I could only find one way to actually use it reliably (as everyone had/has such high LD):
Loot a hellhound
Drive a buggy or similar behind the enemy
Flame! Units wounded by this weapon made an automatic fallback move... right into crossfire! Record kills for one round of flaming? 5 chaos terminators & 20 chaos marines.

3rd edition is my 2nd favorite edition. 5th is my all time favorite, 4th had some serious flaws (transports were not good enough, no reason to screen your troops), 2nd edition was not balanced well, and had too many odd things, and 1st edition was more a collection of odd rules and stuff (but it was fun, in it's own not very streamlined way).

Rick Blaine
29-01-2010, 12:53
I started in early 3E, but have no nostalgia for it. 4E was best.

KingNova3000
29-01-2010, 13:11
I like 2nd ed but not for larger games, just bogs down too much with more models on the table. Although I got into the hobby in 3rd ed I'm one of those type who likes to time travel. Although 3rd ed looking back at it now was pretty crude there would be no 5th ed today without in pioneering. One thing I do not miss is Rhino Rush, who can forget Blood Angels and their first turn assaults!

Occulto
29-01-2010, 13:19
Black spot, I'd say. It started out as a super-streamlined game with some ridiculous rules (especially the CC rules that made veteran sergeants etc. and models not in base contact basically useless and also made assault units far too fast (2d6 overrun, consolidation into new combats etc.), also the transport rules sucked - they were just too useful, especially Rhinos and Serpents), and after a while there were so many army lists and updates that you'd need a ring binder with reference sheets and FAQs just to keep up (towards the end there were over 30 army lists for SM and CSM, and more than half of that weren't even close to balance). They also changed the vehicle and CC rules mid-edition.

Summed up everything I hated about that edition and proof that a game constantly updated isn't necessarily a good thing.

Sygerrik
29-01-2010, 14:56
3rd wasn't nearly as bad as some other editions (Fantasy 5th comes to mind) but really suffered from glut, as people have said. Remember there were 2-3 Chapter Approved books out during 3rd and balance was the first casualty. In terms of rules sweeping advance, while awesome, was way too powerful and led to some really silly situations, like the viability of an all-Kroot list that can assault you on the first turn (even assuming they go first, and regardless of how far back into your deployment zone you go).

Still better than 2nd.

ManicMunky
29-01-2010, 15:29
I liked that it was a lot quicker than 2nd, but there were some massive holes in it!

SPYDER68
29-01-2010, 15:45
3rd was ok, Rhino rush made the edition meh to me.

4th was terrible.. Transport death traps ? no thanks. Entangle was dumb.

5th, so far i still enjoy it, troops for scoring etc make it fun, and seems very balanced compared to previous editions.

Helicon_One
29-01-2010, 15:54
Good things about 3rd Ed: it wasn't 2nd Ed, and it wasn't 4th Ed.

As a first attempt at completely rewriting the ruleset it worked ok apart from the inevitable holes, but 40K 3.5 when the trial assault rules, trial vehicle rules and Rules Of Engagement mission objectives were available was a pretty good system.

Pink Horror
29-01-2010, 16:57
I liked how they tried to keep things simple in the beginning, with the first few army books. Those skinny little books seemed about right to me. Everything was very restrained, and if a unit did something really well, it had to seriously pay for it. And then they started piling on the special rules and changing the cost methodology, probably with the Eldar first. The designers switched thinking, saying to themselves that if a unit had some obvious weakness, like low toughness or slow speed, it now got a very friendly cost. Then of course, there was a constant tug between design philosophies. Some armies got the conservative rules and some got the liberal rules - that's still happening a little today, though now almost every single unit has some kind of special rule. I remember how the 3rd edition Imperial Guard were a backlash in conservatism, so of course they were on the low end of the power scale. (And of course that's changed...) I wonder, what was the first model to ignore instant death? That's probably where it started to go downhill. I still remember enjoying battles with those armies in the original rulebook. But I also remember how the Tyranid book had to add a shoot-the-big-bug kind of rule to get around 3rd edition's screening rules, and then tyrant guard were a patch for that. They just never seem to make up their minds, do they?

Reddog
29-01-2010, 17:20
I started in 2nd Edition and was disappointed when 3rd Edition came out. I didnít like the fact that everything was watered down. Instead of having the variety of Power Mauls, chain axes, etc, you now only had Power Weapons and regular Weapons. Yeah, it greatly sped up the game but it took away a lot of its character. I always wished they would create ďAdvanced 40KĒ using a lot of the old 2nd edition rules.

I also felt that GW was trying to make each army more unique during 2nd edition and then took a giant step backwards in 3rd edition by removing a lot of the special rules.

So, basically I like the faster gameplay but i'm not sure it was worth losing the variety.

cuda1179
29-01-2010, 17:25
I still like the idea of "moral high ground". plus I like how easy it was to get a crossfire situation to work.

Whitwort Stormbringer
29-01-2010, 17:33
Dunno. I started as 3rd was released so most of my memories from that time are tainted by nostalgia.
Same for me - I actually have pretty fond memories of 3rd because I started 40K right when the initial boxed game was released.

Eventually, we did go back and dabble in 2nd a bit, and while maybe a better game in some respects, we all felt that 2nd was very detail-oriented and there was a lot of clutter - it was slow moving and better suited to small skirmish games than larger battles.

I think my biggest grippe with 3rd, really, was that basic game mechanics changed midway through. Overall it felt fairly balanced to me, but then again in my group there weren't really powergamers or people looking for loopholes so we may have easily overlooked some imbalances.

I haven't really played a lot since 5th, though, so I can't give an opinion on how it compares.

Sir_Turalyon
29-01-2010, 17:49
A few things, actualy.

1. Scenarios actualy resambling battlefield situations (patrol, rearguard, strongpoint assault), suitable for narrative gameplay. 4th and especially 5th edition ones were streamlined for balanced tournament play.

2. Codex: Cityfight. Catachans to lesser extent, and in general GW having guts to release dedicated rulesets for un-typical enviroments, using core 40k as basis not ultimate ruleset to cover all situations.

3. Background. BBB had best and most complete background detailing Imperium and 41st millenium, and if anyone wanted intrduction to game's setting this is book I would suggest. It has both coherent description of Imperium and it's major organisations and interesting, in-deep tidbits about interesting details. 4th and 5th edition had nothing but tidbits - plety of detailed descriptions of particular elements and nice pictures, but very little about how these bits fit together. Codex Imperialis had coherent description, but too few details.

4. I think early 40k codices (before Necrons / Tau) were better then late 3rd/early 4th. Except streamlined codices appearing after current Eldar are even better (or were, post Ultramarines codices are again choked with unneccessary special rules).

Phazael
29-01-2010, 17:51
The jump to 3rd was negatively remembered by a lot of people because of the complete reboot forcing people to redesign their entire armies. This mostly hurt people with silly builds (all Wolf Guard Terms with Fists, ACs, AND Cyclones on each guy, ect) or people who built their army with too much heavy support or HQ, since the list balancing was done by point ratios before. It caused a lot of ******** and it came at a time when the Interwebs was really just starting to be a widely accessable medium.

Most of the rules problems from 3rd came back in 5th edition, but some where unique to that edition. Rhino Rushes are among the most widely hated things from that era, but at the time anyone with transports could do the tactic. Now, basically, its confined to only a few armies with open topped transports and, of course, space marines with land raiders. The Close Combat rules also stunk, but got cleaned up a little in 4th (this is an area where 5th improved the game the most), but at the time any army that had special weapons on normal guys (hi2u Cheese Wolves and Templars) was exceedingly powerful. The survivability of vehicles was about what it currently is, mostly due to a significant lack of melta type options, but transports were super deadly to ride around in.

A lot of things that were stupid got brought back in 5th edition, though. True Line of Sight is the biggest offender, but the removal of abstract terrain was a major step back to 3rd as well. There is a reason people called it Crouching Wraithlord, Hidden Powerfist edition. A lot of what 3rd purged from 2nd is also creeping its way back, too, unfortunately, with overpowered psychic setups, first turn assaults, heavy special character/hero dependancies, melta spam, and pretty much the entire Space Wolves codex. So, really, the only lasting impact of 3rd at this point are the tame profiles with the army reboots, the basic CC mechanics, and force org structure. Just about everything else has been changed back at this point, with a few changes in a new direction.

jsullivanlaw
29-01-2010, 17:53
2nd edition was basically a contest to see who could have the toughest characters. I remember having a warboss who had like 5 invlun saves he could take against any wounds or something. The troops were basically just there to slow characters down. The direction with third was a VAST improvement over second.

Ozendorph
29-01-2010, 17:59
For me, going from 2nd Edition to 3rd was like leaving an Iron Maiden concert and going to jury duty. No laser lightshow, no shredding guitars, no giant inflatable zombies. Just a monotone role call, a molded plastic chair, and an endless supply of weak coffee.

2nd Edition was far from perfect, but trying to reduce 40k to checkers was the wrong move in my opinion. They just went too far.

fwiw I feel like they've struck a much better balance between detail and playability with 5th edition. Real codices and tough heroes, but players say things like, "you should take another 10 man Tactical Squad and buy them a Rhino" without falling down laughing afterward.

razormasticator
29-01-2010, 18:03
Force Organization Charts, The implimentation of the Command Squad and how they set up the HQ options etc.

the1stpip
29-01-2010, 18:07
My biggest gripe with 3rd, was that it wasnt 2nd ed.

I lopved 2nd ed, some of my best 40k memories are from 2nd ed, and it went from being an overcomplicated beast to being a simple mewling.

But I have got over it, I am happy with 5th ed.

Awilla the Hun
29-01-2010, 18:24
I started playing warhammer then, as the Tyranids. (How far they've come! Who knows, I still have the magnificently ill painted models, and the Hive Tyrant with Gargoyle wings, maybe I could...)

I was about as incompetent as you might expect a 9 or so year old to be at warhammer then, always trying to use defensive gunlines (which, with Tyranids, and a complete lack of anything that could be called army list design in my little head, went about as well as could be expected.) But I played very few proper games (as opposed to school friends, after assuring me that there was no such thing as a points limit, getting out their massed, gun toting troops-after repeated bragging to me about them, perhaps reflecting just how juvenile the whole concept of bragging about one's toy soldiers really is-and pounding me into the dirt; or introduction games at GW High Wycombe, because we didn't know about the proper clubs, it still being "we" then, rather than just "me and lots of people saying warhammer got gay"), so I think back and can remember little about it.

That was probably the most nostalgic sentence in history.

I'm glad that the "volley fire and bayonet charge" rapid fire has been dealt with. (My nids wouldn't have been, but I had moved on to Chaos Space Marines by then.) But the missions... well, I miss them. I miss victory points (understandable, for a Guard player.) I doubt I ever played any of them more than a couple of times, Cleanse included, but Cleanse is very much more complex than Annihilation ever will be.

Oguleth
31-01-2010, 01:27
The 3rd main rulebook was amazing, backgroundwise.

And it's the only edition that had a Dark Eldar Codex release.

Most of the rules was horrible, and the gaming group I was in always ended up just playing fantasy instead. Also, the early 3rd codex releases (the minidexes) although light on special rules sometimes (which I consider a good thing) with no background, stories or pretty much anything, seemed pointless - why not just release one big tome with all the lists if they wanted to keep it so minimalistic. Or just keep the rulebook lists..

But thankfully the edition was rhino rushed into something more fun..

Phyros
31-01-2010, 01:40
The Salamanders.

szlachcic
31-01-2010, 03:10
3rd was ok, Rhino rush made the edition meh to me.

4th was terrible.. Transport death traps ? no thanks. Entangle was dumb.

5th, so far i still enjoy it, troops for scoring etc make it fun, and seems very balanced compared to previous editions.

This is basically how I feel as well. I actually really enjoyed 3rd after some of the revisions. Then again, this could be due to the nostalgia factor some others have mentioned. I started 40k right before the switch to 3rd ed. The first time I went to buy some models (was going to do Eldar) I noticed the 2nd ed. box was discounted, and after asking the clerk about it I found out about the impending release of 3rd. I waited for the new box, and started collecting Dark Eldar as my first army using the contents of the starter set. So, my introduction to 40k was really in 3rd ed. and as I was able to play a lot more back then there are a lot of great memories too.

I didn't play very much in 4th edition, mainly due to school and being in a dorm, but there were some things I didn't like about it. 5th is definitely an improvement over 4th and I have been enjoying it so far.

MegaPope
31-01-2010, 03:38
2ed to 3ed felt like a transition from a sophisticated, intuitive, well developed game to a gutted shadow of its former self, both rules and background-wise.

True, 2ed did have its problems, but 3ed solved virtually none of them (except the one about how to sell more stuff to an existing audience, and that was just amatter of price drops) whilst adding a slew of its own new problems and simultaneously reducing a colourful narrative game system to a mere exercise in basic accountacy, which it has more or less remained ever since.

3ed and its successors are far more 'Herohammer' oriented than 2ed ever was - I won't go into the whys as they have been thoroughly discussed in more than one previous thread. 2ed did need an overhaul, probably one as radical as what they gave it, but I still think that the ball was dropped badly with the changeover we got. It bore every indication of a system designed by committee, and they've been trying to fix it in ever more illogical ways ever since. Trouble is now, they're in so deep that short of another total reboot (which will likely never happen as it constitutes far too great a risk) they're stuck with it.

Jokubas
31-01-2010, 03:42
I've only ever played 3rd, and have been waiting for a reason to come back. If people really do think it's the worst edition, maybe I should give the game another try.

destroyerlord
31-01-2010, 07:55
@ Jokubas: 5th certainly is better than 3rd. You should give it a go. :D


They also changed the vehicle and CC rules mid-edition.
No they didn't. The trial CC rules were essentially an open beta for 4th edition, and it was so successful with the feedback they got from the players they did the same thing with the vehicle rules. The rules printed in the BBB were still the standard until 4th came out (not sure about tournament play, but thats up to the organizers anyway).

I started 40K mid way through 3rd, the 3.5 version of the chaos codex had just come out I think, so it had already gone through a bit of a shift in direction from simple mini-dexs. A lot of people are saying they have nostalgic thoughts of 3rd, and some are saying they hated all of the 'extra' rules. I am nostalgic about those extra rules, probably because they were the most exciting thing about the game and White Dwarf at the time. The old Codexs were pretty boring so it was awesome to read the index astartes articles and get some new rules to spice up your army. In retrospect I can understand why they stopped those sort of releases.

WLBjork
31-01-2010, 08:43
This mostly hurt people with silly builds (all Wolf Guard Terms with Fists, ACs, AND Cyclones on each guy, ect)

This had been declared illegal for some time, so there wouldn't be many of those.


or people who built their army with too much heavy support or HQ, since the list balancing was done by point ratios before. It caused a lot of ******** and it came at a time when the Interwebs was really just starting to be a widely accessable medium.

It wasn't so much that, but 25%+ of the army had to be squads. For Space Marines, that meant 25%+ of the army on Tactical, Devastator, Assault, Scout and/or Terminator squads. Which meant some people probably didn't have any Tactical Squads, which meant about £20-£30 to correct that - which isn't that bad.

What was worse was the removal of certain weapons and options - for example, Thudd Guns, Rapier Laser Destroyers and Tarantula Weapon Platforms.


A lot of things that were stupid got brought back in 5th edition, though. True Line of Sight is the biggest offender, but the removal of abstract terrain was a major step back to 3rd as well. There is a reason people called it Crouching Wraithlord, Hidden Powerfist edition. A lot of what 3rd purged from 2nd is also creeping its way back, too, unfortunately, with overpowered psychic setups, first turn assaults, heavy special character/hero dependancies, melta spam, and pretty much the entire Space Wolves codex. So, really, the only lasting impact of 3rd at this point are the tame profiles with the army reboots, the basic CC mechanics, and force org structure. Just about everything else has been changed back at this point, with a few changes in a new direction.

First turn assault in 2nd edition? Very rare - almost non-existant. It was 3rd which saw the first-turn charge become a nuisance, due to increased infantry movement and the ability to dismount from a vehicle then assault.

As for TLOS, try going painballing or airsofting sometime. You'll certainly be using TLOS then!


2nd edition was basically a contest to see who could have the toughest characters. I remember having a warboss who had like 5 invlun saves he could take against any wounds or something.

That was impossible under the RAW (a character can have 1 field activated at any time), let alone a later correction from the FAQs (a character can have 1 field save - followed by a list of what constitutes a field save). He might have had 2 unmodifiable saves(a field - Displacer being the best - and a medi-squig, coupled with Mega-Armour - which is certainly modifiable - and he's hard to kill).



The only good thing from 3rd as far as I'm concerned is the improvement to combat. 2nd edition was vulnerable to becoming bogged down when things got messy.

Colonial Rifle
31-01-2010, 09:07
3rd was horrendously broken in places, but I can't fault the enthusiasm and productivity of those years. We had dozens of army lists and GW staff really seemed interested in responding to feedback (shocking, I know).

I miss Andy Chamber's Chapter Approved, where he would actually give a 5 page explaination on rules design choices. *sigh*

lanrak
31-01-2010, 09:15
Hi all.
The ONLY positive thing about 3rd was the fact ALL armies got simultanious release and so were play tested together.
And although the newtered lists were bland , they appeard to achive the highest level of balance in 40ks history...:D

Just for the record ,(IMO.)
RT, was an overcomplicated VERY detailed skirmish game with an rpg bias.
A great FUN break form historicals and WH.(:D)

2nd ed was a streamlined version of RT that was in line with most gamers expectations.It was still over complicated but delivered A LOT of RPG character and a good amount of FUN NARRATIVE driven game play.

3ed seemed to 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.
Rather than some effective pruning to remove time consuming game mechanics/resolution methods.

4th and 5th ed have been slow changes on 3rd, ( mainly driven by marketing ,) with some backward steps already mentioned...

IF the 5th ed game play was covered with elegant and efficient rules , (to the standard of other game companies,) it would be transparent how shallow the game play actualy is.
What most rule sets take 2 pages to clearly define , 40k takes 12 to 14 pages to explain poorly.:rolleyes:
The main emphasis in current 40k is on strategic elements to aid marketing.

Egaeus
31-01-2010, 11:20
Dunno. I started as 3rd was released so most of my memories from that time are tainted by nostalgia.

I started just after 3rd's release as well. It wasn't a great system but then what we have now is essentially revisions of that system.



As for TLOS, try going painballing or airsofting sometime. You'll certainly be using TLOS then!

OK, but I'll need some people to help push me around on my base as I strike a dramatic pose throughout the game...:p

nightgant98c
31-01-2010, 16:58
I started late in 3rd. I don't think I played a year before 4th came out. I really don't think it had any more, or worse problems than 4th, or 5th do. They're just different problems.

Archangel_Ruined
31-01-2010, 18:55
A lot of the multipart plastics they came out with in 3rd were very good (obviously not the DE stuff). That was nice.

Phazael
31-01-2010, 19:05
First turn assault in 2nd edition? Very rare - almost non-existant. It was 3rd which saw the first-turn charge become a nuisance, due to increased infantry movement and the ability to dismount from a vehicle then assault.


Evidently no one played anything other than space marines in your store. Remember that units in other armies had move values other than 4" and everyone could march for double movement. In general, nearly everything moved much faster in 2nd, especially vehicles. As an Eldar player, it was childs play to get a 1st turn assault off, same with Nids.



As for TLOS, try going painballing or airsofting sometime. You'll certainly be using TLOS then!
Comparing an abstract game of chance and strategy to a physical sport is pretty silly.

I agree about the tarrantulas and the changes to CC, though. My biggest complaint about the editions since are the deployment rules that render many units unusable because they cannot start on the table in dawn of war (or escalation in 4th), such as medium range artillery.

Archangel_Ruined
31-01-2010, 19:42
No first turn assault in 2nd? Pah! What about chaos lords with combat drugs, wings, all that nasty gumph? Even worse was the fact that you couldn't kill the buggers once they got there...

Phyros
01-02-2010, 04:40
No first turn assault in 2nd? Pah! What about chaos lords with combat drugs, wings, all that nasty gumph? Even worse was the fact that you couldn't kill the buggers once they got there...

Sure you could.

Feed him one guy at a time by doing a conga-line and tie him up for the game, or shoot into hand-to-hand.

WLBjork
01-02-2010, 07:20
Evidently no one played anything other than space marines in your store. Remember that units in other armies had move values other than 4" and everyone could march for double movement. In general, nearly everything moved much faster in 2nd, especially vehicles. As an Eldar player, it was childs play to get a 1st turn assault off, same with Nids.

Evidently you have never played 2nd edition.

With the exception of some Tyranids, the fastest foot units in 2nd were Eldar, at 5"/10". 3rd saw everyone get 6"/12" (with a possibility of 18" for some foot troops because some Dev had decided to halve the range of their gun).

Charges had to be declared at the start of the movement phase - just like in WHF currently - meaning that there was no drive, disembark, assault movement.

Add in playing with half the models on bigger tables (8' x 4'), and it becomes much rarer for a first turn assualt to be possible.

Killgore
01-02-2010, 12:23
My Chaos 3.5 codex Rhino rush force did pretty well :P

My Dark Apostle was also a badass with all his daemonic gifts

I still got all those Rhinos in a box,shame i dont use as many any more

DDogwood
01-02-2010, 13:58
I really liked the fact that it contained full, usable army lists for every faction you could collect in the back of the main rulebook. I still think that GW would do well to put "basic" army lists in the core rulebook (perhaps covering 1 or 2 HQ options, some core troops, a couple of vehicles, and a smattering of other options) and to make the codex an expansion on the "basic" list, using the same main ideas but adding more wargear, troop variants, and so on.

I actually liked how streamlined everything was in 3rd, but I didn't like the trend it started towards larger and larger armies. I still think in 2nd Ed mode, where a 3-4 units and a couple of vehicles should comprise a full army.