WHFB 3rd vs 4th differences?

pl8180ws

Serf
Back in the day, I played precisely two games of WHFB in anger before moving away to 2E 40k and others (back around to 5th edition for a while too). However, while I'm giving Kings of War a shot for the streamlined epic-clash level games; I'm also interested in trying out a more complex ruleset from time to time.

The default recommendation here seems to be for WHFB 3rd (at least based on the blogrolls I follow), but it's not something I ever had a hand in. Could anyone highlight the major differences, so I can more easily choose what to delve into?

For what it's worth I've got about 1k points of KoW and I could see a realistic ceiling of my army size in WH to roughly equate to 1250pts
 
Off the top of my head...

Int, Cl and WP vanished for WFB4. Also 4 was the first time that routing units were lost if the winning unit caught them straight away.

Coop
 
Yeah...it lost many of the subtleties that made the earlier system great....and a bit clunky. Formations were eliminated, Marching replaced Reserve moves, Immediate destruction of followed up units, a new magic system, hard army lists with little flexibility to customize, etc etc. Give both sets a read through and take what works for you. I personally like the artillery, and stone thrower rules from 4th better as they are not quite as devastating. There is goodness there....just not much...IMO :grin:

Cheers,

Blue
 
It's been a while since I looked at 4th. Additionaly to what Coop and Blue mention...

The to Wound and to Hit tables are easier. This means 'combat' is >faster< which means that there are less opportunities for tactical manouvering, like attacking in the flanks or encircling. Basically if you're looking for complex, tactical and flexible, then 3rd is a better option. If you're looking for simple, fast and rigid then 4th (or 3rd but ignore lots of bits!).
 
Wasn't break check modification added in 4th? E.g, subtracting the number of points you list combat by from your Ld.
 
4th was like Warhammer basic, it took away many of the complexities that slow the game so made it easier for new (younger?) players to get into but sadly at the same time lost many troop types, the rule book its self is servicable but once you get into magic/magic items and the army books you end up with games that revolve around 500 pt characters while a few units mainly mill around in the background. If you can get hold of 4th for the right price and you are prepared to tailor your games to your own requirements then there is no reason you can`t have fun with the rules set but played as "Designed" = not great.
 
I think the biggest difference is in flavour and design philosophy. The shift to 4th also marks the end of an era where GW shifted from a creative flux into regimented army lists and separate army books proscribing what a specific race could field. WHFB moved from being the vehicle for you imagination, to being a toolbox of pre-fab special characters. Before 4th, the meta was completely open (and broken), with 4th the meta instead got highly controlled (but not necessarily more balanced) and concepts such as "competitive armies" or "useless units" reared their ugly heads. Armies were more homogenous and were regarded almost as "teams".

I hope to play 4th one day, but with an open meta attitude.
 
Blue in VT":100xvb3z said:
... I personally like the artillery, and stone thrower rules from 4th better as they are not quite as devastating.
Click to expand...

I've just reread those rules after reading your comment and it explains my confusion about cannons etc. in he Siege game at BOYL. 4th Ed was what I played most as a kid and I like the range guess aspect. If I can persuade my opponents, I think I'll try and reintroduce this, along with bouncing cannon balls :twisted:
 
I think the rules themselves for 4th (and 5th) are fine. Certainly differences from 3rd, same as any other edition. Warhammer of any flavour is needlessly complicated compared to other games, so I'd never call 4th, 5th or whatever "dumbed down", it's just streamlined in places (then brings up extra rules anyway!). Sticking to army list rules and percentages isn't an issue, since I ignore the suggested lists in 2nd/3rd anyway, which were sometimes even more restrictive.

I think magic would be the biggest change, of course. I loved the "card game within a wargame" aspect to be honest. It worked better in 5th though, with only the one side casting spells in their own turn.

I tracked down everything I'd need to play 5th edition last year, chasing up a full magic set and all. If I were to play again, I'd simply ignore restrictions and use whatever we want.

(Then again, I've made plans to do the same with 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th...)
 
3rd had a nice simplified army book with everything in it, 4th started with the separate army books, as nice as some of the army books were in concept with additional fluff and details, I still kinda preferred the 3rd Army book, and use the WHRPG books for the fluff and background.

3rd just seemed to have more customization, especially with the characters. No named heroes in 3rd, which let you "create the narrative" in any way you saw fit. Wildly unbalanced across, though it didn't seem to worry players too much then. One of the nicer bits about 3rd was the 5-10-15-20-25 lvl characters, and + units, nice touch that they went away from.

4th wasn't necessarily terrible, but imo, started the sterilization of the background and game. Could be nostalgia talking though, so pinch of salt and all that.
 
I really like the 4th/5th rules. The whole "herohammer" thing isnt really a problem when i play it now. Back then we really didnt have the cash to buy large units so we always used 50% characters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top