Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The issue is that if you do that, the heavy bolter becomes kinda ridiculus againts 4+ save models.

Which IMHO is the issue here, Marines were the standard to defeat so AP4 was considered worthless and thus AP4 weapons needed absurd amounts of improvements in other areas to compete... except that means 4+ save models and factions in which their majority of models are 4+ or worse may as well not exist in terms of defensive stats.

The binary AP/Save system is such a powerful mechanic, and saves and AP was distributed so poorly across different factions outside Marines, that it is pretty much impossible to balance it beyond assuming Marines are the only faction people play and balance everything around them.

IMHO for such binary system to work, Saves and AP would need to be evenly distributed across factions instead of being basically a faction defining trait.

 catbarf wrote:
I don't understand the nature of the complaint to begin with. Yeah, the anti-light/medium infantry gun was about as effective as the anti-vehicle/monster gun when used against heavy infantry, while being significantly cheaper (and obviously much better against anything with a 4+ save or worse). What's wrong with that?

The real loser there was the autocannon, and there were a number of ways that could have been addressed.

If anything, the tendency to compare every weapon's performance against MEQs just highlights how much of a warping effect the predominance of 3+ saves has on the game- something that the switch back to modifiers improved but did not fix.

It’s that the Lascannon held the greater ubiquity.

Decent against Tanks. Solid against exposed characters. And against MEQ, because of how the AP system worked? Surprisingly good, because it had a high chance of killing One Marine. Sure the Heavy Bolter had a chance of killing three Marines, and some chance is waaaay better than no chance. But again, thanks to how AP worked? The Heavy Bolter also had a chance of doing nothing, without a big swing against average.

So, points allowing (something I did mention in my earlier post which has been overlooked) Lascannons were just more appealing if you had no idea what army you might be facing. It’ll wreck light vehicles and Dreadnoughts. It’ll do reliable damage to Carnifex and Wraithlords and the ilk. And against the objectively Most Common Army? Knock holes in the enemy squads just fine.

And remember this is in comparison to 2nd Ed. There, off the top of my head? Heavy Bolters were 36”, S5, -2 Sv, D4 wounds, two sustained fire dice. Armour Penetration D6 + D4 + 5. Those stats made it a fairly handy weapon. Whilst like 2nd Ed you’d still need Dedicated Anti-Tank, it chewed up infantry short of Terminators quite nicely, and even against bug scary stuff like Carnifex, you could knock serious lumps out of them with just a modicum of luck.

Extreme example? Sister of Battle scored a single, unsaved hit on Abaddon. D4 damage killed him stone dead.

The Autocannon had a lower rate of fire, but a ridiculous range, S7 and more damage. So you could turn it on enemy infantry with reasonable success, but it was a proper threat against light vehicles. Come 3rd Ed? The distinction was much lessened.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, points allowing (something I did mention in my earlier post which has been overlooked) Lascannons were just more appealing if you had no idea what army you might be facing

The FoC of the old editions also included an opportunity cost - the function of heavy bolters could be replaced with small arms, the lascannon could not. So you never saw heavy bolters in those all important heavy support slots.

I think the old strength 6 AP - weapons are underappreciated though. 2+ to wound marines, instant death against a number of factions and swarms, often at the lower range of the points scale but higher range of shots even before the idiocy of eldar scatter-bikes.

A.T. wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
So, points allowing (something I did mention in my earlier post which has been overlooked) Lascannons were just more appealing if you had no idea what army you might be facing

The FoC of the old editions also included an opportunity cost - the function of heavy bolters could be replaced with small arms, the lascannon could not. So you never saw heavy bolters in those all important heavy support slots.

I think the old strength 6 AP - weapons are underappreciated though. 2+ to wound marines, instant death against a number of factions and swarms, often at the lower range of the points scale but higher range of shots even before the idiocy of eldar scatter-bikes.

I agree opportunity cost is the bigger factor here. Especially for elite armies with limited heavy weapons slots.

 Tyran wrote:
The binary AP/Save system is such a powerful mechanic, and saves and AP was distributed so poorly across different factions outside Marines, that it is pretty much impossible to balance it beyond assuming Marines are the only faction people play and balance everything around them.

IMHO for such binary system to work, Saves and AP would need to be evenly distributed across factions instead of being basically a faction defining trait.

Yes, that was the issue in a nutshell. The utility and lethality of all the weapons in 2nd against everyone created a better balance, even if it was accidental.

With 3rd it was heavily situational, and I think part of the frustration was that players had to completely retool their armies. The assault cannon went from terror of the battlefield to a joke. And, as mentioned, vehicles got completely crushed. Imperial Guard tanks, which used to come crashing across the board belching death now just sat there, or crawled along at a walking pace firing 1/4 of their weapons. It was terrible.

Going back a bit, terrain started disappearing because it wasn't necessary. In 2nd units in the open got shot to pieces; in 3rd all the 3+ save guys just ran through it, and besides melee combat was far more effective and decisive. Shooting was kind of besides the point for a lot of armies.

I mean that's another part that really shifted things. A melee monster in 2nd could only kill what he could physically touch, and unless the enemy squad was in a really weird position, he typically maxed out with two guys. If he killed them, he got a bonus move, but in situations like that, it was often advisable to break the unit voluntarily because surviving models not in base to base contact could run away. You could also shoot into melee as a last resort, and every Imperial Guard player at some point would utter the famous phrase: "Sir, you'll hit our own men!" "They're already dead." So grim. So dark.

Too dark for 3rd, so that went a way. Instead we got the famous rule that models in contact got their full slate of attacks, which flowed right through the enemy squad. Guys farther away got to "throw rocks." What this meant that characters just destroyed footsloggers. In 2nd, it was actually possible to dogpile a lone character piling up bonuses so that after the four punks died, the sergeant with the power fist could clean things up.

Not in 3rd. I've long since gotten rid of the books (and apparently the electronic files of army lists, hmmm), but the core point was that a four-turn game had only four shooting phases for each player, but eight melee phases, and since characters had multiple attacks (IIRC a space marine captain with terminator honors and power sword/pistol got 5), they could just slice right through enemy troops.

A lot of the game was therefore about making that happen or stopping it from happening, and if you're a shooty army, cover is not something you worry about - the primary thing is just to shoot as much as possible before being overrun.

I'll say this, Imperial Guard got a heck of workout and my fleeting victories felt a lot more earned that the ones with Space Marines.

I should note that in going through my archives, as early as 2002 I was going back to 2nd ed. and by 2004 was playing regularly with my reconstituted group (which had disintegrated because of 3rd).

 Tyran wrote:
The binary AP/Save system is such a powerful mechanic

It was a small range though.

One bolter wound to kill a chaff model, two bolter wounds to kill a semi-elite model, three bolter wounds to kill a marine.

I liked 3e, but I agree that save mods are better than all or nothing AP.
All or Nothing AP was clearly designed around Marines as the baseline, and if you played a non-Marine army you could really feel that.

The 2e AP system wouldn't have worked with the more flattened nature and generally lower stats of 3e, so it'd have to be no AP for normal weapons, -1 AP for AP4, -2 AP for AP3 stuff, -3AP for AP2 stuff and -4AP for AP1.
Heavy close combat weapons like choppas could have been -1 AP and so on.

I think it just works better, and gives those 6+ and 5+ save armies at least the feeling that they sometimes get to use the save they paid points for!

I very much agree.

By all means reduce save modifiers some, but don’t do away with them entirely.

Imagine how much better received the 3rd Ed Shuriken Catapult might’ve been received if it at least retained its -2 save.

Even with its inexplicable 12” range? With -2 to saves, the rest of its stats would allow Guardians to pack a decent punch. Certainly it would’ve given even Terminators pause for thought before just blundering about in the open.

Save Modifiers meant I couldn’t rely on my Power or Terminator armour to just shrug it off.

To Hit Modifiers gave me more reason to consider working my way through cover at a slower, but ultimately safer, pace.

3rd Ed (whilst later editions would improve the underlying system) essentially lead Marine players to just ask “yes, but is it a Lascannon/Plasma Gun/other decent AP weapon”. If the answer was No? I was pretty safe, unless it was seriously massed firepower.

It was just too binary. Lightly armoured stuff infested cover, as that’s how you got survivability. Well armoured stuff just waltzed about where they wanted.

Over simplified, with too much nuance and situational decision influences removed.

But as I said, I’m not saying “therefore 2nd Ed was fine”. Because it wasn’t. It needed streamlining. But 3rd Ed went way too far in the other direction. Especially with said inexplicable guff like 12” range Shuriken Catapults.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Even with its inexplicable 12” range? With -2 to saves, the rest of its stats would allow Guardians to pack a decent punch. Certainly it would’ve given even Terminators pause for thought before just blundering about in the open.

But you end up in 10th edition where everything has two wounds and toughness 5 to offset the fact that otherwise your terminators have the durability of guard vets.

-2 save mods drastically shrink the difference between no save and power armour.

While true, you can offset save mods with other defensive characteristics. You cannot really offset binary saves/AP because of how powerful it is as a system.

You can give a model T5 and 2 wounds and it would still feel fragile with a 4+ save in a binary AP system.

They threw out the baby with the bathwater going 2nd to 3rd. They would strip it down and remove really easy things like the movement stat and modifiers (because modifiers are too hard?) and had to put on a bunch of special rules to make up for what had been lost because the core set of rules didn't cover enough basic ground to model everything they wanted in the game (but as long as those special rules were not modifiers because it would make player's brains implode apparently).

Dishing out multiple wounds to squad level models is something I like - at least in theory. So don’t read this as universal praise for its implementation.

But when a model’s overall resilience is determined by toughness, wounds and save? You get more design space overall.

For instance, bog standard Marines are now twice as resilient against Small Arms fire, but heavier weapons can and will still make them go splat. That works for me (again at least in theory), as it feels quite cinematic. The extra wound representing that even though a given wound may be horrific (your arms off!), a Marine can still fight on through it, where lesser beings would be crippled at best.

 Tyran wrote:
While true, you can offset save mods with other defensive characteristics.

True, but if you want armor protection to be sufficient to make a model feel very durable, and it doesn't do that, so you have to use not-armor stats to represent armor, clearly the mechanic is flawed.

Armor modifiers and the all-or-nothing system were vastly different in their effects, and where GW went wrong was treating it as if they could just extrapolate from one to the other while keeping the values the same. The relationship between a 5+ save and a 3+ save is very different when comparing the two systems, and they have different implications on the gameplay.

The all-or-nothing system created stronger contrast between good and bad saves. It made armor and your exact save, where you exist in the weapon-target pairing hierarchy, very important. The modifier system makes poor armor more valuable, but also devalues good armor, and makes countering heavily armored units easier. If you want weapon-target pairing to be very important, and for heavily armored units to be highly resilient to anything short of anti-tank weapons, the all-or-nothing system is better for that. If you want armor to be a defensive boon but easily devalued and not a defining characteristic, the modifier system is better for that.

I've said before that I didn't particularly like the all-or-nothing conceptually- and I think the fact that the game is a Marinefest caused problems with critical breakpoints (AP3) that wouldn't exist in a more equally represented game ecosystem- but it had a purpose and was better at capturing a particular vision than the modifier system. The writers on 8th didn't seem to understand the implications, and they've been doing damage control ever since.

Part of why the game's stat model is such a bloated mess is because the stats don't do what they're supposed to do, and rather than rework mechanics to fit their vision for the setting, GW resorts to inflating other characteristics to compensate or tacking on special rules. The relationship between T, W, and Sv is essentially arbitrary at this point; any sort of coherent modeling is long gone and there are a lot of weird side effects.

 Tyran wrote:
While true, you can offset save mods with other defensive characteristics. You cannot really offset binary saves/AP because of how powerful it is as a system.

You can give a model T5 and 2 wounds and it would still feel fragile with a 4+ save in a binary AP system.

How much of this is feelings though? A T5 W2 Sv4+ model is markedly more durable than T4 W1 Sv3+ against all AP5+ weapons below S10, more durable against all AP1-3 weapons unless they are S10 (then it is equal) and is only less durable against S10 AP4+ (just some weapons on Carnifexes in 3rd) or a fairly small range of AP4 weapons like heavy bolters and autocannons (there are more AP1-3 weapons than AP4 weapons across the game in 3rd). These latter are also pretty close in durability if the S is low- heavy bolters are only a bit more effective at killing the W2 model than the Marine, but autocannons are a lot better.

As it happens, the only such model I can think of in 3rd is Ork Nob bikers, and those are pretty expensive due to their other benefits (like speed, firepower, and melee damage).

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
and even against bug scary stuff like Carnifex, you could knock serious lumps out of them with just a modicum of luck.

The Heavy Bolter only wounded a Carnifex on a 6 (S5 to T8), then the Carnifex saved on a 5+ on 2D6 (7/36 to fail). By my math each HB shot had a bit over a 3% chance to do something, which ain't a lot. Cut that in half if the Carnifex was rocking the fairly popular 4++ from a Voltage Field.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The Autocannon had a lower rate of fire, but a ridiculous range, S7 and more damage. So you could turn it on enemy infantry with reasonable success, but it was a proper threat against light vehicles. Come 3rd Ed? The distinction was much lessened.

The Autocannon in 2nd was S8 rather than 7. But even at S7 in 3rd ed, the reduced armor levels still made the AC a fine option against light vehicles. It's role stayed pretty intact between editions. It could Glance a Predator from the front on a 6 even, (with better odds than the HB against a C-fex above). And if Memory serves me, the 4+ needed to have an effect on a Rhino in 3rd was actually slightly more likely than the averaged chance against a Rhino's parts in 2nd.

 Tyran wrote:
You can give a model T5 and 2 wounds and it would still feel fragile with a 4+ save in a binary AP system.

Vs S4

Binary system
T4 1W 3+ ........ 2 hits AP 3, 6 hits AP 4 or 5
T5 2W 4+ ........ 6 hits AP3, 6 hits AP 4, 12 hits AP 5

Save mods
T4 1W 3+ ........ 2 1/2 hits -3, 3 hits -2, 4 hits -1
T5 2W 4+ ........ 6 hits -3, 7 hits -2, 9 hits -1


In some ways it's the same end result - save modifiers get less effective as they go up and armour goes down just as high AP weapons are wasted on overkill.
But the AP system has clear benefits/penalties on matching the right/wrong gun to the right target whereas with save mods guns are just equally better against everything until they overmatch and start to trail off.


In 2e what you had instead of binary AP was the somewhat more random multi-wound weapons where you big guys would, sometimes, get rather rapidly popped..

 Haighus wrote:

How much of this is feelings though?

I admit that it is part feeling, but also part that in a Marine skewed meta those AP4 weapons are going to be very cheap because they are otherwise worthless against Marines.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
and even against bug scary stuff like Carnifex, you could knock serious lumps out of them with just a modicum of luck.

The Heavy Bolter only wounded a Carnifex on a 6 (S5 to T8), then the Carnifex saved on a 5+ on 2D6 (7/36 to fail). By my math each HB shot had a bit over a 3% chance to do something, which ain't a lot. Cut that in half if the Carnifex was rocking the fairly popular 4++ from a Voltage Field.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The Autocannon had a lower rate of fire, but a ridiculous range, S7 and more damage. So you could turn it on enemy infantry with reasonable success, but it was a proper threat against light vehicles. Come 3rd Ed? The distinction was much lessened.

The Autocannon in 2nd was S8 rather than 7. But even at S7 in 3rd ed, the reduced armor levels still made the AC a fine option against light vehicles. It's role stayed pretty intact between editions. It could Glance a Predator from the front on a 6 even, (with better odds than the HB against a C-fex above). And if Memory serves me, the 4+ needed to have an effect on a Rhino in 3rd was actually slightly more likely than the averaged chance against a Rhino's parts in 2nd.

On the Carnifex, it’s those odd unsaved wounds doing D4 wounds that knocked the lump off. In 3rd Ed? I got more reliable but inherently lesser volume of fire. Wounded on a 5+, and had to overcome a 2+ save. Manage that? A whole single wound. Sing hosannas!.

The 2nd Ed Autocannon, outside of additional rules like Tank Hunter? Was again only really a threat against Light Vehicles, and the occasional T3 character caught out in the open away from friendly units. Even then? A Lascannon was doing more reliable damage against Light Vehicles, and could blat T4 characters to boot, and fairly swiftly strip wounds off of Monstrous Creatures.

 Tyran wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

How much of this is feelings though?

I admit that it is part feeling, but also part that in a Marine skewed meta those AP4 weapons are going to be very cheap because they are otherwise worthless against Marines.

In fairness, I should acknowledge that feeling is important here, given the thread is all about perceptions of the edition. Even if a heavy bolter isn't useless against Marines, a lot of folk clearly perceived it as such and that is a problem in its own right.

I think a lot of players value shots that bypass armour, perhaps disproportionately to the actual maths effects*. It might be a psychological thing of seeing your shots bounce off. I do sympathise with it and experience it myself.


*For example, a hotshot lasgun is no better against a Marine than 3 lasguns, and you could take three 5pt Guardsmen for every 16pt Stormtrooper. But the hotshot felt good burning though that armour...

Think it might help if I grab my 2nd Ed Wargear book to offer up some stat lines. 3rd Ed ones I’ll try from memory, on the caveat they’re entirely open to correction.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Similarly, may barrage of Insectum7 clearly was a bit wide of the mark because my point wasn't that 2nd was impossible to metagame with WAAC armies, it was that it was not easy. Buying 100 hormaguants was not "easy," it was rather expensive.

Creating lop-sided armies in 3rd was easy. Just add some black and white paint to your space marines and you're good to go!

It was easy to be cheesy in 2nd too. Tellingly, the "sportsmanship" award was a big part of GW sanctioned tournaments back then, because people would otherwise show up with WAAC style lists.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tadaa!! There's your problem! If all you need to do is back up and shoot, you've got a terrain issue.

Terrain was pointless in 3rd, serving only as an LOS obstruction or movement obstacle. Trying to conform to terrain would leave you vulnerable to sweeping advance, which was far more consequential than getting a 6+ save you didn't even need against heavy bolters.

I wonder what else you think terrain is good for? It's used for cover, concealment, movement obstruction and occasionally greater visibility (gain high ground to see over other obstacles), as well as providing a defensive bonus against assaults, all of which were a part of 3rd ed. Unless this is just a complaint about how Marines didn't get a cover bonus against Heavy Bolters and small arms, in which case I'd argue you're missing the point.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

I can recall a number of 2nd ed games that ended in a capitulation after my first round of firing. Two of them were in tournament settings. And two that I recall of them were literally Opposition deploys in hiding - I go on Overwatch my first turn - Opposition moves - I fire my overwatch - Opposition finishes turn - I fire again in my turn - opposition forfeits. In short: they hide, I wait, I fire in their turn and my turn, and they were done.

I ran into that as well, always against first-time players. Overwatch caused a lot of peoples' brains to lock up, but once they understood its limitations (same targeting rules apply, less accurate, you get to shoot next), it was used in its proper place.

Did those games use mission cards? I find those an essential part of the game, because if it's just "sit there and plink for points," you're not really doing anything meaningful. A mission makes it worthwhile to lose a tank while trying to force a flank or take an objective and 3rd incorporated these directly into the scenarios, which was a good thing.

There is no debate that 2nd was a more mentally demanding game in terms of player decisions because there were more options to chose from. Even stripping out a lot of the special rules kludge (individual jump pack scatter on every move???), the core rules forced you to think harder. There's a telling passage from the Orks codex that warns players against simply shouting "WAAAGH!" and racing across the tabletop because the weapon lethality will do them in. Some form of tactical movement is essential.

All that changed in 3rd. Direct frontal assault worked, and the first turn was a huge advantage. In 2nd, it was often better to go last, because you could sneak onto the objective, push across a line or get a last shot at killing a character.

"Your opposition players just weren't good enough." is a very easy accusation to make. I could simply say the same thing about your experience in 3rd edition. Your opposition wasn't good enough and your boards didn't have enough terrain to make your battles interesting. See how easy that is?

In every edition of 40k it is incumbent on the players themselves to come together and tune their experience. For 3rd and 4th particularly, since I was the host I built terrain that made tables look nice while also functioning well to adequately break up LOS, give cover and provide options for each player to leverage. The fact that you say "terrain was pointless in 3rd" is very telling, imo.

As for "mentally demanding", it could also be called "cumbersome". I don't think I have an opinion on that other than the observation that a lot of the fiddly bits of 2nd weren't necessarily a plus. Personally I appreciated the more abstracted approach which let me focus on the bigger picture rather than all the details. And despite the details of 2nd, "Spam Assault Cannons with high BS and use Blind Grenades to control my firing arcs and therefore target selection." wasn't exactly rocket science. Same as any 40k, you find your bread and butter tricks and units, and rely on them 90 percent of the time while keeping a few tricks in your back pocket for when you have to tackle oddball stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On the Carnifex, it’s those odd unsaved wounds doing D4 wounds that knocked the lump off. In 3rd Ed? I got more reliable but inherently lesser volume of fire. Wounded on a 5+, and had to overcome a 2+ save. Manage that? A whole single wound. Sing hosannas!.

Scoring one wound off of 5 isn't far off from 2.5 off of 10, especially when the former is more likely.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The 2nd Ed Autocannon, outside of additional rules like Tank Hunter? Was again only really a threat against Light Vehicles, and the occasional T3 character caught out in the open away from friendly units. Even then? A Lascannon was doing more reliable damage against Light Vehicles, and could blat T4 characters to boot, and fairly swiftly strip wounds off of Monstrous Creatures.

Don't you mean 3rd ed? I think a lot of people favored Autocannons because they were cheaper than Lascannons and the two shots meant it was more likely for lesser troops to score a hit.

I did of course mean 3rd! That’ll learn me to post whilst working.

 Haighus wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

How much of this is feelings though?

I admit that it is part feeling, but also part that in a Marine skewed meta those AP4 weapons are going to be very cheap because they are otherwise worthless against Marines.

In fairness, I should acknowledge that feeling is important here, given the thread is all about perceptions of the edition. Even if a heavy bolter isn't useless against Marines, a lot of folk clearly perceived it as such and that is a problem in its own right.

I would point to the Heavy Bolter being a pretty devastating weapon agaonst Marines in 2nd, but the change to 3rd really didn't nerf the HB so much as it improved the effectiveness of Power Armor.

But also, people thought the HB was worthless against Marines even if they started post 2nd, having never experienced it's effects with a -2 sv mod. So it wasn't a comparative "feeling" either.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the potential opportunity cost of using the Heavy. In a Tac squad, firing your Lascannon at a vehicle meant you gave up your squad bolter fire, as they couldn't shoot at a different unit, and couldn't hurt the vehicle. The HB was more of a complimentary weapon in the squad,

I still never bought the Heavy Bolter though . . . Always the Lascannon. High AP weapons were in short supply, and I figured I could put enough bolters on the table to deal with lesser threats. I'd use the Heavy weapon choice to give me more chances to knock out high value or high threat targets, even if it meant my bolters would lose a few rounds of shooting from time to time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

How much of this is feelings though?

I admit that it is part feeling, but also part that in a Marine skewed meta those AP4 weapons are going to be very cheap because they are otherwise worthless against Marines.

In fairness, I should acknowledge that feeling is important here, given the thread is all about perceptions of the edition. Even if a heavy bolter isn't useless against Marines, a lot of folk clearly perceived it as such and that is a problem in its own right.

I would point to the Heavy Bolter being a pretty devastating weapon agaonst Marines in 2nd, but the change to 3rd really didn't nerf the HB so much as it improved the effectiveness of Power Armor.

But also, people thought the HB was worthless against Marines even if they started post 2nd, having never experienced it's effects with a -2 sv mod. So it wasn't a comparative "feeling" either.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the potential opportunity cost of using the Heavy. In a Tac squad, firing your Lascannon at a vehicle meant you gave up your squad bolter fire, as they couldn't shoot at a different unit, and couldn't hurt the vehicle. The HB was more of a complimentary weapon in the squad,

I still never bought the Heavy Bolter though . . . Always the Lascannon. High AP weapons were in short supply, and I figured I could put enough bolters on the table to deal with lesser threats. I'd use the Heavy weapon choice to give me more chances to knock out high value or high threat targets, even if it meant my bolters would lose a few rounds of shooting from time to time.

Well, as pointed out up-thread, a heavy bolter wasn't terrible against Marines in 3rd (superior per point than a lascannon), although I am sure it took a downgrade from 2nd in that role. It was essentially equivalent to a S5 AP3 Heavy 1 weapon mathematically.

I touched on synergy with squad weapons in one post, but as you say most people accepted that hit. Opportunity cost is a big factor though. You would see heavy bolters most commonly on vehicles that came with them. I also would not be surprised to see them cropping up in foot guard lists, where the availability of heavy weapon slots is high, possibly higher than you can fill. There you can take enough lascannon for the big stuff and still have room for some heavy bolters.

^Agree. In my lists the AP 4 came from vehicle mounts, generally Land Raider, Predator or Whirlwind in 3rd, and the Assault Cannon in 4th when it was rightfully upgraded again. Rarely did AP4 appear on troops, probably only as the Heavy Bolter in a Scout Squad.

But to be honest I never deployed a Heavy Bolter on a troop model in 2nd either, since a Missile Launcher with Plasma Missiles had about same impact with potentially much more disruptive results, came on a weapon that offered a nice AT option in the Krak missile, and didn't jam

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Your opposition players just weren't good enough." is a very easy accusation to make. I could simply say the same thing about your experience in 3rd edition. Your opposition wasn't good enough and your boards didn't have enough terrain to make your battles interesting. See how easy that is?

I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions. Were the players experienced? Did they have missions? If your troops have Dawn Raid as a mission and you're afraid of tripping Overwatch, that's a player issue.

If you're on overwatch, all your units will hit less effectively. Your opponent can then exploit this, by selecting what you can see and pushing relatively invulnerable units (like tanks) out front. If you fire on them, he should have reserve assets that then torch your revealed positions. You don't fire, the opponent can push forward until your units are detected, and plaster them with blast weapons.

Or use blind grenades, which you know all about. Did they?

This is not a complex tactical puzzle, so I'm struggling to find a charitable explanation as to why your opponents didn't come up with something. Again, I assume they were simply unused to the game.

In every edition of 40k it is incumbent on the players themselves to come together and tune their experience. For 3rd and 4th particularly, since I was the host I built terrain that made tables look nice while also functioning well to adequately break up LOS, give cover and provide options for each player to leverage. The fact that you say "terrain was pointless in 3rd" is very telling, imo.

But it was. Marines didn't need it, assault armies didn't like it, shooting armies got punished by it.

The heart of 3rd was melee combat. One space marine captain could throw more attacks - and deadlier ones - than multiple turns of squad shooting. Third ed. was specifically designed to make assault combat easier to achieve, and it did.

As for "mentally demanding", it could also be called "cumbersome".

Well yes, thinking tactically can be cumbersome. It sure is easy when your troops have only three options - move, shoot, assault. You are spared the difficulty of weighing whether they might also run, hide or go on overwatch.

Similarly, "big picture" gaming is a lot easier when units moving in plain view of the enemy don't have to worry about reaction fire.

So we both agree that 3rd was easier to play.

And despite the details of 2nd, "Spam Assault Cannons with high BS and use Blind Grenades to control my firing arcs and therefore target selection." wasn't exactly rocket science. Same as any 40k, you find your bread and butter tricks and units, and rely on them 90 percent of the time while keeping a few tricks in your back pocket for when you have to tackle oddball stuff.

No one has ever said that it was not possible to optimize armies in 2nd.

What I have said is that the simpler, AP-focused armies of 3rd lent themselves to more uniform list types and that these were capable of sweeping an opponent out of contention by the end of the first turn. That simply did not happen in 2nd unless one of the players was a novice or did not understand the rules, and the examples you gave support that.

You yourself have pointed out the many and varied ways the many and varied lists in 2nd all have seriously deadly and effective options. That was not the case in 3rd. IIRC, GW had to redo some of the 3rd ed books because the lists were so feeble. IG treadheads really took it on the chin as well, and I don't notice anyone disagreeing with me so I will count that point as settled.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
But it was. Marines didn't need it, assault armies didn't like it, shooting armies got punished by it.

The heart of 3rd was melee combat. One space marine captain could throw more attacks - and deadlier ones - than multiple turns of squad shooting. Third ed. was specifically designed to make assault combat easier to achieve, and it did.

Some armies could throw out a whole lot of low AP fire and/or superior small arms fire. There is a reason why Iron Warriors were top tier and it wasn't melee.

3e space marine captains - two MEQ kills on the charge with a sword, three with a fist (assuming all the extra attack upgrades).

A.T. wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
But it was. Marines didn't need it, assault armies didn't like it, shooting armies got punished by it.

The heart of 3rd was melee combat. One space marine captain could throw more attacks - and deadlier ones - than multiple turns of squad shooting. Third ed. was specifically designed to make assault combat easier to achieve, and it did.

Some armies could throw out a whole lot of low AP fire and/or superior small arms fire. There is a reason why Iron Warriors were top tier and it wasn't melee.

3e space marine captains - two MEQ kills on the charge with a sword, three with a fist (assuming all the extra attack upgrades).

I'd argue 4th made melee more deadly with the chain consolidations into combat - my broodlord feasted well that edition.

Whilst it is undeniable that 3rd markedly reduced the flexibility of gun vehicles with the shooting penalties incurred by moving or firing ordnance, I don't think that alone made it a bad edition for treadheads.

This is the era of Imperial Guard armoured companies and mechinised companies, mechanised Tau, Eldar skimmer tanks, and 3.5th Iron Warriors.

Does anyone remember what was changed from the beginning of 3rd edition, to the "3.5 edition" where they tweaked a ton of core rules through White Dwarf? I know most of it was for the assault phase.