New to Oldhammer. 2nd, or 3rd edition?

zoggin-eck

zoggin-eck

Member
Hi everyone. As said, I'm pretty new to any edition of WHFB before 4th, but I'm keen to get playing. I am, however, not sure if I like the look of 3rd more than 2nd edition...

Clearly 3rd is the "fan favourite", but reading through the rules it's all a bit much in my eyes. I must admit I'm more of an occasional player and the somewhat simpler rules and troops appeal. I own the rulebooks for both, along with Warhammer Armies for 3rd. I just got my hands on Ravening Hordes for 2nd, so I'm pretty much covered for both.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of others, and why they play either game. I understand that 3rd carries heaps of nostalgia due to the great supplements and WD articles of the time (even when I played 4th, I was lucky enough to have a mate with much older issues, so my memories of 4th are a bit more like 3rd as far as background and look go). As a "pick up and play occasionally" game, certain sections like the chariot rules seem way too complex. Perhaps it's just a matter of playing enough to remember the rules (and un-learning later editions, let along unrelated wargames!).

Army lists/options are pretty much the same when you use Ravening Hordes, so are there any "must have" rules/reasons to play 3rd?
 
Chico

Chico

Member
At the end of the day, play whatever you fancy it's your hobby after all. Its not what you play but how you play it. Oldhammer is a state of mind. I'll go so far as saying that you can even get away with modern rules sets (I play them myself).
 
Asslessman

Asslessman

Member
Agreed, a true oldhammerer is a one able to play fair with any rules. it's just the models and the paintings are better in the old books (plus there's no BS about balance). Just read what's under Oldhammer at the left upper corner of this page and you get the idea.
 
zoggin-eck

zoggin-eck

Member
That part I understand. Even playing 8th rules, I get the feeling I've been playing a completely different game! Kind of why I'm here now. I haven't read the mind-numbing terms "army build" or "army tiers", which is nice.
 
ardyer

ardyer

Member
Just John":hza99tv9 said:
This thread here goes into the differences a bit

http://forum.oldhammer.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=800
Click to expand...

John beat me to it. If you already own both and your group is open to either, play the one you're most comfortable with. Hell, incorporate rules from both if you want. For most of us here, I think, the appeal of oldhammer is not the rules themselves, but the spirit and manner of play. Story driven battles, no win at all cost attitude, and general craziness and random happenings that can occur in this environment. Imho, you can play "Oldhammer" with the current set of rules if you want, the actual set of rules are just guides...and it just so happens that 2nd and 3rd editions are much more open ended so it's easier to use for that.
 

Skarsnik

Member
Use 'em all!

I'm about to start a campaign using 2nd for skirmishes, 3rd for medium(ish) sized games and 8th for big games. Plus hopefully Monowar for sea battles and an as yet undecided ruleset for sieges.
 
zoggin-eck

zoggin-eck

Member
Thanks again for the replies :grin:

Ha, the mentioned thread is partly what made me read through 2nd in the first place!

I must admit that making a new thread is just me indulging a little. I really do find the different opinions and play styles fascinating. I'm more looking at suggestions, rather than asking people to decide which edition I should play :)

Hmm, looks like I prefer the sound of 2nd. I might try playing 2nd edition "as-is", then add 3rd rules as needed.

I can't decide if I like the extra rules from Ravening Hordes, which kind of make it a "2.5" edition. Any experience on using them or not? I'm not sure I actually like the maneuvering rules from 3rd anyway. They do seem to add a whole lot of extra movement, what with them being in addition to normal movement and additional maneuvers. Does 2nd seem sluggish in comparison?

I'm surprised at how different the skirmish rules are. I'm not sure which I prefer.

Just John":3fp7b9ga said:
Just to confuse matters you could always grab a copy of 1st to add a bit extra to the mix - such as the random encounter table which you can read all about on my blog here http://tabletopheroesandvillains.blogspot.ie/2012/10/old-school-randomness.html :grin:
Click to expand...

That I might do. There's some fun stuff in 1st and the Forces of Fantasy supplement.

I just read through your Blog the other night! I must admit it's another one of the reasons I read through 2nd properly. The Harboth's Orc Archers are ace. I painted some fairly recently, though I don't own the command group.

Skarsnik & Old Lead":3fp7b9ga said:
Use 'em all!

I'm about to start a campaign using 2nd for skirmishes, 3rd for medium(ish) sized games and 8th for big games. Plus hopefully Monowar for sea battles and an as yet undecided ruleset for sieges.
Click to expand...

That's a great attitude to have :)

I've kind of done similar before, playing Epic 6mm games with the same armies as 40,000.

As for siege games, that gets me thinking. I still haven't found the "Perfect" set of rules. 3rd is pretty involved, while Mantic's KoW is totally lacking (and missing sections!). The 8th rules are very "one scenario" specific. Perhaps I need to look at the 5th siege book again :)
 
Thantsants

Thantsants

Member
Having played quite a few games recently thanks to the Oldhammer weekend and WP's invitations we've found that you end up half remembering and mistaking rules from several different editions.

Orc's Drift was played with 2nd ed. and we were continually looking for rules we'd remembered from 3rd that either didn't exist or were much looser in 2nd. I like them both a lot!

Pretty much what WP and Zhu said in that department.

I don't know anything about later editions (4th is very hazy to me)

I've also had a lot of fun with Skulldred (Battle Reports here and here), Havoc and if you fancy 15mm or smaller - Mayhem

I like Skarsnik's plan for different sized games as well. At some unspecified point in the far future I'd like to tie in smaller scale games with Mighty Empires, Man 'O War, Warmaster/Mayhem and then down to 3rd/2nd ed and Havoc/Skulldred for skirmish.
 

Skarsnik

Member
Thantsants":gb682a8v said:
I like Skarsnik's plan for different sized games as well. At some unspecified point in the far future I'd like to tie in smaller scale games with Mighty Empires, Man 'O War, Warmaster/Mayhem and then down to 3rd/2nd ed and Havoc/Skulldred for skirmish.
Click to expand...

Sign me up! ;)
 
Thantsants

Thantsants

Member
For sure - but do you have a multi-scale campaign sized gap in your schedule of other projects? ;)

That's what I struggle with :lol:
 
zoggin-eck

zoggin-eck

Member
No wonder people get the different sets confused. I see that moving (other than on a steed/chariot) doesn't affect shooting in 2nd, while it does in 3rd, along with moving over 6" in the reserves phase. I bet I'd forget that one.
 

Zhu Bajie

Member
zoggin-eck":29y8zk2q said:
No wonder people get the different sets confused. I see that moving (other than on a steed/chariot) doesn't affect shooting in 2nd, while it does in 3rd, along with moving over 6" in the reserves phase. I bet I'd forget that one.
Click to expand...

Movement effected by shooting in 3rd? Thought it was only Crossbows and the like, same as 2nd/RT?
 
zoggin-eck

zoggin-eck

Member
Zhu Bajie":681usy8u said:
zoggin-eck":681usy8u said:
No wonder people get the different sets confused. I see that moving (other than on a steed/chariot) doesn't affect shooting in 2nd, while it does in 3rd, along with moving over 6" in the reserves phase. I bet I'd forget that one.
Click to expand...

Movement effected by shooting in 3rd? Thought it was only Crossbows and the like, same as 2nd/RT?
Click to expand...

Yeah, -1 to hit if you moved or turned, which isn't in 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top