3rd and 6th Editions - Their Strengths and Weaknesses

[glahn]

Good morning everyone,

I've already posted this over at boardgamegeek, but since I don't get any answer there, I'll try it here.

So far, I've had only superficial contact with the Warhammer universe (both in their Fantasy and 40K incarnation) - except for the novels, which I adore. Having returned to Battletech, I'd also like to give WFB a try, yet I have no real idea which edition to pick. Since I'm no friend of any kind of power creep - let alone "heroes" who single-handedly are capable of erasing a complete army and likely to turn the tide in battle just because of their mere presence, it seems that either 3rd or 6th edition are "my" version. Unfortunately I was unable to obtain any information in regard to their differences. What are their respective strengths and weaknesses? What is the focus of each of these versions, what do they 'taste' like?

Kind regards and thanks in advance.

 

[Mr Papafakis]

That would take a while to do. Seeing as I'm a bit of lazy sod i'd just sum it up as saying 3rd is crammed full of stuff, some of it useful for a game, some of it not, but all of it awesome!!! Whereas all editions that came after were just whittled down versions of 3rd, making a sleeker game, but at the cost of removing all the awesome

That's my personal take on it anyway.

 

[glahn]

Hello optimus,

thanks for the immediate reply.

Maybe it helps, if I explain what I look for and what I don't look for in a tabletop wargame. I want a game which pits me against an oponent and not against the rules system whose gaps I am implicitly expected to exploit. The rule system may be cumbersome with lots of fiddly bits (which I can ideally cherrypick), but it should have an overall 'realistic' feel to it, which means that I don't want to repeat what I experienced in the two Warhammer 40K battles I took part in: everything but the 'heroic' characters on each side were but cannonfodder which were wiped away easily and hence deprived them of any strategical value whatsoever - except for 'buying time'. If the 'grim' aspect of the Warhammer background was reflected in the rules, I'd be delighted.

Since my primary focus has been on roleplaying games for years, this analogy might help: I'd favour AD&D/OD&D, Rifts and Rolemaster over the horrible mess that is called D20/D&D3.5 any day.

 

[Galadrin]

Ok, but it should be mentioned that the "grim" aspect of the Warhammer background is a really selective way to approach Warhammer. I might call WFB 3rd Edition and WFRP 2nd Edition (a game not even made by GW) "grim," but I wouldn't call any other edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Roleplay grim. WFRP 1e could be quite heroic and adventurous, as was (clearly) Warhammer Quest. Similarly, the other editions of the battle game, 1st and 2nd edition included, aren't exactly "grim" in my view. Man O War and Blood Bowl, two other games which help explore the Warhammer world, are also not exactly "grim."

If you want something that pits pure the pure tactical skill of the players against each other, I would look at Warhammer Fantasy Battle 4th Edition. It was an immensely streamlined version of the game where the stakes were very high for every move you made. Dice rolling did add a random element, but if you got the charge and had a decent regiment, you could expect to vaporize the opponent's regiment in one round. In that sense, it was a lot more like chess: you just move your piece and remove an opponent's piece and then the opponent can do the same. For these reasons, WFB 4e was great for tournament play. That said, if you do not want heroes to dominate over footsloggers, I recommend picking up the WFB 5e Battle Book and applying some of the rules limits recommended in there. For instance, you could do minimum 50% regiments, no more than one magic item per character (including special characters) and no more than Level 2 magic. Or just bring your own mighty heroes, tell yourself "it's just a game!" and have fun.

If you want something that plays out better for scenarios and stories, then you probably want WFB 3e, as regiments could survive through long blow-for-blow slogs and victory had to be eaked out of the margins. It is important to note, though, that characters in 3e could be at least as powerful, if not much more, than in any other edition of Warhammer.

 

[glahn]

Thank you for your insight, Galadrin. There are two particular aspects you mentioned that make me side with 3rd edition: on one hand the fact that it ties in well with campaigns/story-driven approaches, and on the other hand that 3e seems to let you rather wage a war of attrition than making complete units dematerialize spontaneously as soon as they are hit. Maybe it's due to my Battletech socialisation, but I always feel a twinge of disappointment, when I have to take a complete unit off the table - even if it's supposed to be standard procedure. For that very reason I don't think that 4e will ever have a chance to convince me. The reputation of 5e as 'Herohammer' has always prevented that I'd take a closer look, but since you mentioned rules that prevent the utter domination of a single character I might reconsider...

 

[ramshackle_curtis]

3rd has everything you nedd and a whole load more, and then chuck in some D1000 tables. And all the army lists you need in one handy book.

I have played every edition but they are all almost exactly the same game but with less options. No edition gets the balance right, so why not go for the one with the most in it, ie 3rd?

 

[glahn]

Good point - yet, this leads me to another question. I've been under the impression that when we talk about different editions, we talk about truly tremendous differences - this D&D-like attitude that started with 3.5: you create a complete new set of rules that bears only the vaguest resemblance to its forebears and only retains the trademarked name. But if I read your post correctly, it seems that the different editions do change, but 'only' insofar as they put different emphasis on different aspects, whereas the 'overall design mechanism/feel' remains at least roughly the same.

PS: The more I read about 3rd edition, the more I like it. It does seem to be the one that suits my preferences best. Tons of options, but no tons of splat books - that's my kind of game.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

I'd favour AD&D/OD&D, Rifts and Rolemaster over the horrible mess that is called D20/D&D3.5 any day.

1st Ed is OD&D
2nd Ed is Holmes Basic
3rd Ed is 1e AD&D
4th Ed is 3e D&D
5th Ed is 3e D&D
6th Ed is 2e AD&D
7th Ed is 3.5e
8th Ed is 3.5e.
AoS is MtG.

All editions (except AOS) have the same core mechanics for combat resolution, so in comparison are really more like house-ruled versions of D&D than the big differences between d20 and od&d. There are major differences in the magic system tho. with 1st-3rd being largely the same (a point / mana system with massive spell lists) 4th where magic almost became a mini-game in its own right, and 6th onwards with very limited spell book and dice-pool mechanics.

3rd ed. has a focus on historical unit formations, movement and manoeuvres, it attempts to simulate ancients / medieval / early modern warfare. Heroes can still dominate a game, but it's down to the players to not adopt that play-style. It's probably the most 'simulationist' edition, with the most grit in the strategy and tactics department. All 1st-3rd had single book 'army lists' so didn't really suffer the 'power creep' of 4th-8th. 3rd isn't all that 'grim' it feels kind of swords and sorcery, compared to the later stuff (the Realms of Chaos supplements not withstanding, but they were in development since 1e so don't particularly belong to any edition), 4th/5th are positively cartoonish, 6th onwards gets grim.

6th contains a lot of supplemental rules you can cherry-pick from, with guidelines (rules) for skirmishing (more detail for small battles, less than 20 figures a side) and some other stuff, like a campaign rules - all nice chewy stuff you can add in (assuming you're going to be GM-ing) 3rd did have Mighty Empires for campaigns. The art direction is more 'grim' than 3rd ed, and it suffers from splat-book creep with the army books, and IIRC (don't have the book to hand) unlike 2nd and 3rd doesn't have a basic troop / equipment / pv list for you to roll your own.

 

[Galadrin]

Maybe it's due to my Battletech socialisation, but I always feel a twinge of disappointment, when I have to take a complete unit off the table - even if it's supposed to be standard procedure. For that very reason I don't think that 4e will ever have a chance to convince me. The reputation of 5e as 'Herohammer' has always prevented that I'd take a closer look, but since you mentioned rules that prevent the utter domination of a single character I might reconsider...

That's completely fair—it does sound like 3e is more your game. 3e has a gradually deteriorating morale which draws its inspiration from more historical games. It should be noted that 4e and 5e are virtually identical, other than the army books (they added Bretonnian, Lizardmen, Vampire Counts and a new High Elves book, all of which were really unnecessary and unfortunately slowly shifted the feel of the game).

 

[Galadrin]

4th/5th are positively cartoonish, 6th onwards gets grim.

I'm not sure if I disagree with that characterization of 4th/5th, but mainly because I am not sure exactly what is meant by it or how helpful a description it is ultimately. The writers of 4th/5th did definitely think of it more as a game than a simulation. The artwork was certainly cartoony (very, very good cartoons, of course) and the game world was laden with "in-jokes" meant to render the setting ironically whimsical and lighthearted. These were, after all, writers influenced by 2000 AD and other sci-fi and fantasy works of dark humour.

I guess you could even say aspects of the rules were cartoonish. There were rules for squig hoppers and squig herders (and all the chaos that ensues from them), wonky spells with gonzo effects and an enduring "pathetic aesthetic" where your plucky little smiling army men could be instantly vaporised by dragon's breath or a falling Treeman. Often, the fate of an entire regiment or character was in the balance of a single die roll and in such circumstances, the drama (and tragedy and comedy!) was running high. You're hero might be lucky or unlucky, which added to a sense of whimsical play.

None of these things are objectively bad—in fact, I think (as always, with the right players) they can be great.

 

[Moe]

Some of my 3rd edition likes are as follows:

• Armor is more important. Since strength doesn’t automatically reduce armor save like later editions, even Light Armor can be of help. (You need a specific weapon or be a big monster or War Machine usually to reduce armor saves). Armor does however have more of an encumbrance effect reducing movement.
• Love the Army book, with all armies in one book, and the option to take Mercenaries and Allies with your army (and accompanying rules for them!). Note 6th also had a “Ravening Hordes” book with all the armies which could be used instead of all the various army books.
• Characters add a bonus to a units Leadership instead of simply using the Characters Leadership. So a Leadership 5 Goblin unit led by Leadership 9 Orc will not have Leadership 9, instead it may have just a +2 bonus for a Leadership of 7.
• I think maneuvering with units in 3rd is more interesting…giving an advantage to better leadership armies like Dwarves and elves, as compared to Orcs….instead of “Any unit can turn 90’ for ¼ move”. I also like the Reserves Phase instead of all unit just marching at double speed.

These are not dislikes…more of things I am unsure about:

• While more detailed with more rules, often the rules are unclear…and may say “The GM should decide XXX”. The rules do recommend a Game Master, while not required, without one be prepared to decide situations on the fly with your opponent.
• I’m unsure of the magic system, haven’t used it enough. With 3rd many spells may be useless, and many seem almost too good. I think 6th edition is probably a better system.
• Not sure about Flying rules, in 3rd they seem very complicated with all the various levels and such (but probably more representative of how flyers should work), as a I recall in 6th flyers basically stay on the ground and do “hopping” type moves at an increased movement rate. Actually flying rules were one think I liked from 4th/5th…they simply had an option to fly high above the battlefield or be at ground level…sort of an in-between from 3rd and 6th.
• Some War Machines may be overly accurate (and very good at picking off characters). Some simple house rules can correct this through.

John

 

[Zhu Bajie]

4th/5th are positively cartoonish, 6th onwards gets grim.

I'm not sure if I disagree with that characterization of 4th/5th, but mainly because I am not sure exactly what is meant by it or how helpful a description it is ultimately.

I think you understood what I meant by cartoony very well! Of course, there is no right or wrong, but I wouldn't recommend 4th/5th to someone who highlights Palladium, Rolemaster or AD&D as their ideal systems - they are crunchy games that take themselves a bit seriously and focus on adjudicating in-game play rather than min-max character/army builds. The OPs original question regarding 3rd and 6th do both have their merits in those directions.

Warhammer has always had irony and humour. I guess some of the 'cartoonish' aspects are better understood by comparing something like 2nd editions "The Tragedy of McDeath", which is a pun on Shakespeare, and contains socio-political satire and details exactly the forces that are available, vs the 5th Ed scenario pack "Grudge of Drong" which sounds like a knob joke and largely hand-waves the forces. There is humour in both, but it's humour of a different flavour. Both 3rd and 6th Ed are much drier in that respect, with 7 and 8th probably being the most 'serious' in tone and art direction, but without the real grit and crunch on the tabletop that 3rd gives.

Broadly speaking the simplification of combat, units in 4th/5th plus the heavy emphasis on models with special rules, rather than a broad collection of rules that can be applied to any model creates a more cartoonish feel. I don't think theres any argument to say the influence of 2000AD was any stronger in 4th edition than previously, 2000AD contributors Alan Grant, John Wagner, Brett Ewins all worked on GW products during the 2nd Edition period, which was also when Rick Priestly wrote the Judge Dredd RPG (and rules for JD were published for 2nd Ed) which lead to Rogue Trader (which is 100% compatible with 2nd ed, and heavily draws on 2000AD) and Carl Critchlow was drawing Thrud before going on to do work in 2000AD. Stuff like dragons being awesome and drama are pretty true of all editions, and doesn't really help differentiate them.

To the OP - one thing to note is that the core rulebook and armies book in 3rd is comparatively light on the campaign setting, the world is painted in broad-brush strokes (although it is more detailed and codified than 1st or 2nd). If getting more of the 'warhammer world' into your game is important, then it's going to be pulling in from other sources. 6th Editions army books fill in a lot more of that detail.

 

[Verlox]

6th was when I entered into Warhammer. 6th, in my opinion, is the the best middle ground for well-balanced tourney armies (if you all agree no special characters), and the ability to make the game more like a skirmish.

3e is a lot more interesting though, and in my belief more fair since all armies can employ the same tactics if they so choose, rather than be restricted based on army book special tactics.