airbornegrove26
Baron
Though I grew up with warhammer fourth edition in white dwarf. I never actually played a game or owned the rules. So for those who have had it or know the rules what are the subtle differences between the editions? Thanks
3e. vs 4e.
- Thread starter airbornegrove26
- Start date
Protist
Vassal
The GM. was dropped as a method of overseeing the game leading to rules disputes galore and a trend towards competition style 'line em up & knock em down'!
4e brought in specific army books for individual factions/species, and in those books were a selection of insanely powerful 'named characters', such as Nagash for the Undead.
There was also the invention of the march move (move double when you are over 4" away from the enemy IIRC), resulting in the removal of the reserve move phase, streamlining the game a little.
4e brought in specific army books for individual factions/species, and in those books were a selection of insanely powerful 'named characters', such as Nagash for the Undead.
There was also the invention of the march move (move double when you are over 4" away from the enemy IIRC), resulting in the removal of the reserve move phase, streamlining the game a little.
Blue in VT
Baron
Like any of the rules changes there are good and bad aspects to 4th ed. As you are aware I actually prefer the 4th ed rules for cannon and other war machines which I feel are often overpowered in 3rd....particularly cannon.
What I dislike about 4th mostly has to do with combat resolution. Push back is eliminated. the difference in "scores" affects combat resolution drastically as it affects any panic or rout tests. And if you do manage to rout a unit and successfully follow up...there is no Free hack...the enemy unit simply disappear. So you end up with situations where one mounted hero pushes back a unit of 40 infantry Goblins and completely wipes them out during follow up...its just stupid.
So stick with 3rd...but its worth reading 4th and taking what you like from it.
Cheers,
Blue
What I dislike about 4th mostly has to do with combat resolution. Push back is eliminated. the difference in "scores" affects combat resolution drastically as it affects any panic or rout tests. And if you do manage to rout a unit and successfully follow up...there is no Free hack...the enemy unit simply disappear. So you end up with situations where one mounted hero pushes back a unit of 40 infantry Goblins and completely wipes them out during follow up...its just stupid.
So stick with 3rd...but its worth reading 4th and taking what you like from it.
Cheers,
Blue
treps
Vassal
The main differences :
- No reserve : replaced by march move
- simplify maneuvering on the battlefield
- no push back (and everything stated by Blue regarding fleeing units)
- new war machines rules (with new dices)
- no dice other than D6
- New % rules to build the armies
- apparition of an army book per faction (but the list of standard miniatures and monsters is covered in the books), with special characters
- No GM, and the rule of use a D6 if you disagree on a rule
- The beginning of promoting tourneys in White Dwarf as a new way to play with the staight battles without any scenarios or narrative...
The apparent Goal was to simplify the game a lot and to have games played with a lot of miniatures faster than before, 3rd was a full wargame, 4th tends to become and advanced board game... Some changes were good (notably the new war machines rules) but some were oversimplifying the game IMHO.
- No reserve : replaced by march move
- simplify maneuvering on the battlefield
- no push back (and everything stated by Blue regarding fleeing units)
- new war machines rules (with new dices)
- no dice other than D6
- New % rules to build the armies
- apparition of an army book per faction (but the list of standard miniatures and monsters is covered in the books), with special characters
- No GM, and the rule of use a D6 if you disagree on a rule
- The beginning of promoting tourneys in White Dwarf as a new way to play with the staight battles without any scenarios or narrative...
The apparent Goal was to simplify the game a lot and to have games played with a lot of miniatures faster than before, 3rd was a full wargame, 4th tends to become and advanced board game... Some changes were good (notably the new war machines rules) but some were oversimplifying the game IMHO.
Asslessman
Baron
Isn't the "to hit" and "to wound" charts one of the big chances too (or were those changed later) ?
Blue in VT
Baron
treps":fxc992ok said:
This is the perfect summary of the difference...Treps nails it.
Cheers,
Blue
airbornegrove26
Baron
Awesome guys. Thanks for the info. Don't worry I wasn't making the jump. I just have all these old WD articles and army books, and wanted to know a bit more.
treps
Vassal
Yes ! The "to hit chart" was shifted by one (in 4th you needed a 3 when it was a 4 in 3rd...) with some other changes (no more hits on 2, and 5 became the higher unmodified needed to hit.Asslessman":1s2mdiyg said:
The "to wound" table remains the same !
And don't forget Magic ! The whole modular system changed to be replaced by a card game in itself...
Asslessman
Baron
treps":3ivhbbzm said:
I hadn't played 3rd for a long time (I know, shame on me) and last game I know my opponent and I found that chart made combats last reaaaaaalllllly long... I don't know if I just got used to the later chart but I think I'd use the newer over the older one tbh. I fully agree many changes don't make much sense (apart from making rules child friendly) but this chart I'd change in my games.
treps
Vassal
In fact a lot of thing are faster in 4th :
- march move allow for more rapid contact
- simplified maneuvering
- the "to hit" table makes things easier to kill the opponents
- aerial combat
- the routing system eliminates more troups without much chances for them to rally
- the magic system is faster (no points to count, reduced choice of spells and magic items (less rules), just cards to play, etc.)
- a game last for a given number of turns
- etc...
A game lasting 6+ hours in 3rd could be resolved in probably less than 3 hours in 4th, that was needed to appeal to younger players or to people wanting a "beer and bretzel game" approach (being able to meet after work, to have a game and then have time for a drink at the pub before the bell
)
Even if there are some nostalgics like us it seems to have been a good plan if you look a the increased number of players since the 4th was out (and before 40k became the major GW game).
In my opinion they should have keep 3rd rules as advanced rules annexed to the core system in the following editions to keep the "real" wargame feeling of the game...
- march move allow for more rapid contact
- simplified maneuvering
- the "to hit" table makes things easier to kill the opponents
- aerial combat
- the routing system eliminates more troups without much chances for them to rally
- the magic system is faster (no points to count, reduced choice of spells and magic items (less rules), just cards to play, etc.)
- a game last for a given number of turns
- etc...
A game lasting 6+ hours in 3rd could be resolved in probably less than 3 hours in 4th, that was needed to appeal to younger players or to people wanting a "beer and bretzel game" approach (being able to meet after work, to have a game and then have time for a drink at the pub before the bell
)Even if there are some nostalgics like us it seems to have been a good plan if you look a the increased number of players since the 4th was out (and before 40k became the major GW game).
In my opinion they should have keep 3rd rules as advanced rules annexed to the core system in the following editions to keep the "real" wargame feeling of the game...
Fimm McCool
Lord
Although the first set of rules I owned was 3rd Ed, the first I PLAYED was 4th ed. I like a lot of the 4th Ed system as compared to 3rd; the simplified psychology, march moves instead of reserve moves and magic system seem to balance a lot better. What I prefer from 3rd is the close combat whereas in 5th a few casualties suddenly make a huge difference as has been noted. That's principally behind the term 'Herohammer' that was used for 4th/5th... a few OP characters ruled the battlefield supported by an expendable cast of weak troops.
bulldoglopez
Vassal
I got into fantasy during 4th. prior to that I had only played Rogue Trader and Epic.
Its funny because I got into fantasy because I HATED the look of 2nd ed 40k.
I still love 4th edition orcs and gobbos.
Its funny because I got into fantasy because I HATED the look of 2nd ed 40k.
I still love 4th edition orcs and gobbos.
Snickit
Vassal
I'm a big advocate of both editions. I played both growing up but mostly 4th and so this edition has a special nostalgic place in my heart but I wouldn't say it was perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
Both have merits and both have flaws.
I know that the majority of people on here look down on 4th as the lesser of the two and I'll concede that when you have the time to play it 3rd is a great game and in a lot of ways a better game, but for speed 4th is the one I look to. With the movement phase and combat phases both being quicker it means a game that would take most of a day in 3rd (which is perfectly fine if you have that much time) can take a few hours in 4th.
I don't know anyone that plays 3rd that doesn't use 4th edition style March Moves by saying "I'll do their reserve move now during the movement phase". I'd say that's the best example of people accepting that 4th does have merits, even if they won't accept it has many.
Try playing it with toned down characters (similar to 6th) and maybe even say that any level of character can be a general, not just a Hero Lord. On the subject of Characters, those all powerful beasties with a high level character on them? Not as powerful as most people think, if you play the "driven off" rules correctly then they may actually only influence very other turn and this actaully makes them less attractive and therefore people are less likely to use them.
I agree the magic system can be a game in itself (and sometimes this is fun) but if you look at the most powerful 3rd spells some of them are evn more powerful than 4ths most powerful spells. Placing a restriction on magic levels can help for 4th but to be honest most people I play place the same restriction on 3rd magic users. 5th edition actually rebalanced the magic somewhat by removing the ability to cast spells in your opponents phase and this does actually help, you could always add this rule into your games of 4th.
Applying the principles of Oldhammer to 4th and having opponents who want to create the same kind of game helps, if you have two players who don't want to power game then you'll end up with a fast paced game that's not over balanced. 3rd is a more involved game and that's good fun too and I get great joy out of playing either edition.
Just to throw that cat amongst the pigeons, I actually love 6th as well. It plays out (for me) like a hybrid of 3rd and 4th.
Both have merits and both have flaws.
I know that the majority of people on here look down on 4th as the lesser of the two and I'll concede that when you have the time to play it 3rd is a great game and in a lot of ways a better game, but for speed 4th is the one I look to. With the movement phase and combat phases both being quicker it means a game that would take most of a day in 3rd (which is perfectly fine if you have that much time) can take a few hours in 4th.
I don't know anyone that plays 3rd that doesn't use 4th edition style March Moves by saying "I'll do their reserve move now during the movement phase". I'd say that's the best example of people accepting that 4th does have merits, even if they won't accept it has many.
Try playing it with toned down characters (similar to 6th) and maybe even say that any level of character can be a general, not just a Hero Lord. On the subject of Characters, those all powerful beasties with a high level character on them? Not as powerful as most people think, if you play the "driven off" rules correctly then they may actually only influence very other turn and this actaully makes them less attractive and therefore people are less likely to use them.
I agree the magic system can be a game in itself (and sometimes this is fun) but if you look at the most powerful 3rd spells some of them are evn more powerful than 4ths most powerful spells. Placing a restriction on magic levels can help for 4th but to be honest most people I play place the same restriction on 3rd magic users. 5th edition actually rebalanced the magic somewhat by removing the ability to cast spells in your opponents phase and this does actually help, you could always add this rule into your games of 4th.
Applying the principles of Oldhammer to 4th and having opponents who want to create the same kind of game helps, if you have two players who don't want to power game then you'll end up with a fast paced game that's not over balanced. 3rd is a more involved game and that's good fun too and I get great joy out of playing either edition.
Just to throw that cat amongst the pigeons, I actually love 6th as well. It plays out (for me) like a hybrid of 3rd and 4th.
Fimm McCool
Lord
Totally agree. I never played 6th, or 7th, but I enjoyed 4th and 5th and am actually quite a big fan of 8th. I think it depends what kind of game you're after too. 3rd works best (in my opinion) on a warband/small army level. Compare, for instance, how many figures 3000 points gets you at 3rd Ed and at 8th Ed. That demonstrates how the game scaled up over time. Yes it's probably so GW can sell more minis, but in any case the game has shifted from a small skirmish to a large battle game so of course some of the complexities had to fall by the wayside.
treps
Vassal
I think no one on this thread was saying that 4th was a bad game, it's really a different one, with the tactical aspect of the game tuned done and made to be played faster than 3rd, way faster...
Personally I do prefer 2nd/3rd because the game has more appeal to me, probably due to the semi-complexity of rules and their openness, I saw them as a toolbox more than a finished game in itself (and I do like this DIY approach), but if I was to play a more recent version my choice would be 6th, then 8th (without all the random terrain non sense and such things, but random charges and measuring distances are really not a bad thing).
I believe that 6th is the most finished version of the rules after 3rd, 4th/5th were too simplified for my taste, 7th was made almost exclusively with "balance" and tournaments in mind. 8th is really not that bad too, the problem lays more on the actual players who can't play what is not formally written in the rules and the army books that tried to propose something similar for each army in the name of balance and as such made each army the same one...
After all the important part is the spirit of the players ! You can play narrative and fun games with any version of the rules as long as you are not a win at all cost player and are able to house rule when needed (and a GM is really a plus)
Personally I do prefer 2nd/3rd because the game has more appeal to me, probably due to the semi-complexity of rules and their openness, I saw them as a toolbox more than a finished game in itself (and I do like this DIY approach), but if I was to play a more recent version my choice would be 6th, then 8th (without all the random terrain non sense and such things, but random charges and measuring distances are really not a bad thing).
I believe that 6th is the most finished version of the rules after 3rd, 4th/5th were too simplified for my taste, 7th was made almost exclusively with "balance" and tournaments in mind. 8th is really not that bad too, the problem lays more on the actual players who can't play what is not formally written in the rules and the army books that tried to propose something similar for each army in the name of balance and as such made each army the same one...
After all the important part is the spirit of the players ! You can play narrative and fun games with any version of the rules as long as you are not a win at all cost player and are able to house rule when needed (and a GM is really a plus)
Zhu Bajie
Baron
treps":i7qjnyv3 said:
I think that's really it. In terms of the kinds of play that the rules generate, 3rd is much more tactical in the way it simulates being a general. You have to make decisions about deployment and movement much more than 4th.
The loss of Reserve moves is a good example of removing strategic thinking from the game. Rather than the player making a decision based on what is happening on the field, all armies must simply rush in to combat. Reserve movement can be done in response to a combat result, manouvering into position in order to protect a flank that has suddenly become weak, or to advance into a better position. Force march can't be responsive, by its nature.
If you want a 'fast' game using 3rd, drop the manoeuvres, lower the points level to a skirmish, it's easily done, don't have to sacrifice the simulationist-tactical aspects for the simplified gamist of 4th.
zoggin-eck
Vassal
I love the fact that only on this forum could 4th edition be called "fast" 
Anywhere else it's a slow, mess of a game, just like every edition of WHFB 
I love 4th/5th the best.
I think though, if anyone was to play 4th, you may as well go for 5th since it's the same with a few clean fixes and with all the magic/cards in one set. Magic cast only in 'your' phase, too, which I prefer.
Anywhere else it's a slow, mess of a game, just like every edition of WHFB I love 4th/5th the best.
I think though, if anyone was to play 4th, you may as well go for 5th since it's the same with a few clean fixes and with all the magic/cards in one set. Magic cast only in 'your' phase, too, which I prefer.
treps
Vassal
People here are probably older than on other forums, you don't see the time running the same way while getting olderzoggin-eck":35k8ujd1 said:I love the fact that only on this forum could 4th edition be called "fast"
zoggin-eck
Vassal
treps":t4sxjuan said:People here are probably older than on other forums, you don't see the time running the same way while getting olderzoggin-eck":t4sxjuan said:I love the fact that only on this forum could 4th edition be called "fast"
True, but I'm more thinking of old farts who see any of these games as huge time-wasters or playing comparatively quick games like Hordes of the Things.
Actually, I played through a couple of games of the fan-made (OK, WHFB rip-off) "One Page Fantasy" rules. Anyone who thinks 4th is quick, with its challenges, magic and aerial fighting would probably jump out of the window with this game