Poking around in the database today I noticed to my surprise that 3rd edition rules are still holding strong. Take a look:
Code:
PLAY COUNT BY RULESET
________3e_____4e_
2013 936 ---
2014 678 248
2015 164 483
2016 105 425
2017 103 197
Those of you still regularly playing with 3rd edition, care to share why? I'm curious, not accusatory!
I play 4th edition but there are some major changes between the editions:
- Movement costs in the open and roads
- Hills being no longer limiting terrain
- Airplanes
- Assault CRT being 2d6 instead of 1d6
- Assault rules
- Fields
I currently am playing third edition because I havnt gotten around to playing any of the games published under 4th edition yet : / I'd rather play the older games under the 3rd edition ruleset rather than introduce further potential imbalancing.
Once I hit 4th edition games I'll probably switch over.
The 3rd edition had many holes and issues, the 4th edition fixed some of those. Problem is that the 4th edition created it's own problems. While I think the 4th edition is generally an improvement, it does have some glaring issues.
As most of you know, my primary opponent and I
play something rather different.. We have mostly integrated the better parts of the 4th edition.
Just getting back into things after a layoff of a few years I had planned to use 4th ed. rules as I understood them to be generally a clean up and clarification of 3rd. Then I noticed hills were no longer limiting terrain...which I had to re-read several times and refer back to 3rd ed. a couple times just to make sure I was seeing that correctly. Noticed the 2d6 Assault Table too...and recognized some codified Q&A from over the years...but thought generally everything else looked pretty much the same.
What are the other changes impacting play in 4th ed.? What do you consider to be the primary shortcomings? While I'm generally replying to Pete's statement, I'd be curious to see what other's opinions are too.
I think Hugmenot has identified the most significant items. Be careful to understand the new TEC. The impact of many of the changes are not obvious until you have played a few scenarios.
I play only 4th edition. The spotting rules are a lot better.
(06-04-2017, 11:43 PM)fanghawk Wrote: [ -> ]Just getting back into things after a layoff of a few years I had planned to use 4th ed. rules as I understood them to be generally a clean up and clarification of 3rd. Then I noticed hills were no longer limiting terrain...which I had to re-read several times and refer back to 3rd ed. a couple times just to make sure I was seeing that correctly.
I think it's a necessary change. There are still rocky, wood, or town hexes to give you limiting terrain, but hills just represent elevation changes.
(06-05-2017, 07:28 AM)joe_oppenheimer Wrote: [ -> ] (06-04-2017, 11:43 PM)fanghawk Wrote: [ -> ]Just getting back into things after a layoff of a few years I had planned to use 4th ed. rules as I understood them to be generally a clean up and clarification of 3rd. Then I noticed hills were no longer limiting terrain...which I had to re-read several times and refer back to 3rd ed. a couple times just to make sure I was seeing that correctly.
I think it's a necessary change. There are still rocky, wood, or town hexes to give you limiting terrain, but hills just represent elevation changes.
I agree...it's a change I like and a change that I think makes sense. I just remember 6 or 7 years ago when I was transitioning into PG from ASL and the PB line of games that there was a LOT of discussion at the time about why hills were and should or shouldn't be limiting terrain. It was one of the hardest things for me to wrap my head around conceptually and I really struggled with it trying to learn the system. Which is why it took me several checks and re-checks when it changed to make sure I wasn't misreading it. LOL Those Eastern Front/Road to Berlin boards have gotten a whole lot more naked...I wonder what that will do to the scenarios. Guess I'll find out.