This topic may sound weird for people who started playing 40K during 3rd or later. In essence Thunder Hammers/Lightning Claws/Chain Fists were portrayed in 2nd as Terminator weapons and were the only models depicted who actually wielded them although according to the rules SM in Power Armour could use them as well. So how do you feel about this? Should there be exclusive weapons for Terminator Armour or is the "Anything Goes" sentiment like we have it now a much more preferred method?
I like the concept that the heavy armor lets the wearer use heavier, more cumbersome weapons. But with the over the top heroics kicking around these days, I’m fine with them being used by everyone. Rule of Cool goes a long way.
Castraferrum and Contemptor dreadnoughts can take chainfists too.
I'm in the middle. I like that a cyclone missile launcher is a Terminator-only weapon, for example, but I'm fine with storm bolters being available in the general armoury. Come to think of it, I'd like storm bolters to be returned to the Imperial Guard armory...
The Black Adder wrote: I think there should be some advantage to wielding the heavier weapons in terminator armour. But I'm ok with them being used elsewhere.
There are fluff reasons - one of the Guard novels says their power fists only have enough batteries for 3 hits.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: I definitely prefer the "anything goes " variant to the "no, your chars can't carry jump packs because we didn't make a Model for that" variant.
I would say its more about setting a particular set of roles for different armour types, rather than "we don't make a model".
If a certain type or class of weapon is specifically restricted to terminators, then as long as its consistently restricted to terminators, then that's ok to me. Arbitrarily restricting a weapon that is available to some power armour troop types, but not to others is a bit harder to justify.
In the older editions didn't TDA also enhance stats over PA? I think that was the reason why some weapons were for TDA only. Nowadays everyone is more aware of nutrition so anyone can use, practically, any weapon they can get their hands on (around).
Leo_the_Rat wrote: In the older editions didn't TDA also enhance stats over PA? I think that was the reason why some weapons were for TDA only. Nowadays everyone is more aware of nutrition so anyone can use, practically, any weapon they can get their hands on (around).
Imperial TDA in 2nd granted the following:
1. 3+ save on 2D6.
2. Teleport option.
3. Access to Terminator weapons.
4. Targeter for ranged weapons.
5. Various resistances to specific status effects.
Chaos TDA in 2nd granted the following:
1. 3+ save on 2D6.
2. Access to outdated Terminator weapons.
3. Various resistances to specific status effects.
As someone who started playing in 2nd edition it still feels weird to me that models in Power Armor can take Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws, and I strongly prefer the OG Powerfist for my various Power Armored characters for the sake of tradition.
As for gameplay on Terminators, the Terminator Armor should be ignoring the -1 to hit when using the "heavy" CC weapons. Also Chainfists should be hitting harder than they do.
Strg Alt wrote: I think when everybody can take Terminator weapons than the appeal of the unit suffers.
Agreed.
Honestly, I think far too many of the Terminator's toys have been given away.
For example, it used to be that good saves and invulnerable saves were extremely hard to come by. Even a 4++ on a character used to be a one-per-army artefact. Now it's just standard-issue wargear. As, in many cases, is a 2+ save - even if the character in question has a Bike or a Jump Pack. And this is before we even get into the actual relics.
IMO Terminator armour really lost its sheen when characters were allowed to have mobility items and still keep their excellent armour and invulnerable saves (not to mention the melee weapons discussed here).
Well, with the Thunderhammer, what I would prefer is for marines outside of the TDA to have to duel-wield it (though Vanguards or was it Sternguards clearly shows otherwise). A hammer is a hammer, provided they have their own power source instead of having to be attached to the suit, they should be able to be wielded by anyone strong enough to lift it.
Things like Lightning Claws, Powerfists, Chainfists are a little bit more special though. The marine fist weapons though are clearly a part of a TDA since the claws and chainfists uses the fist as bases. Seeing them "worn" by non Terminator armours look odd to me. They can certainly say these are custom-made by artificers using parts from damaged TDA suits. For some I think it's thematic like for the Raven Guards, so looking cool is a good part in my being ok with it.
As another player from 2nd - Yeah... Termy only weapons on non Termy's is weird. I suppose I would prefer that they be restricted back to TDA only to make the premier/premium unit stay premier/premium.
I also think that the Genie is out of the bottle and that GW has sold too many Vanguard Veteran squads to make a change like that.
On a side note - I always wanted to make a custom chapter where all the core troops had jump packs, Termy's and Dreads excepted, but had no access to armored vehicles beside a basic transport.
Tome_Keeper wrote: As another player from 2nd - Yeah... Termy only weapons on non Termy's is weird. I suppose I would prefer that they be restricted back to TDA only to make the premier/premium unit stay premier/premium.
I also think that the Genie is out of the bottle and that GW has sold too many Vanguard Veteran squads to make a change like that.
On a side note - I always wanted to make a custom chapter where all the core troops had jump packs, Termy's and Dreads excepted, but had no access to armored vehicles beside a basic transport.
I have five metal Vanguard models already painted and still five more in plastic to put together. The new kit comes along with all kinds of close combat weapons and out of respect to the Terminators I won´t choose Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws.
Tome_Keeper wrote: As another player from 2nd - Yeah... Termy only weapons on non Termy's is weird. I suppose I would prefer that they be restricted back to TDA only to make the premier/premium unit stay premier/premium.
Same. If everything can have everything, the fluff is meaningless and all that matters is what gets the most pluses.
I also think that the Genie is out of the bottle and that GW has sold too many Vanguard Veteran squads to make a change like that.
GW is famous for reversing itself repeatedly. Take nothing for granted.
On a side note - I always wanted to make a custom chapter where all the core troops had jump packs, Termy's and Dreads excepted, but had no access to armored vehicles beside a basic transport.
Before the stupid org charts became mandatory, one could play an all-jump pack army. Indeed, IIRC, a codex chapter had a reserve company of assault marines, so one could just claim to be using that unit.
Before the stupid org charts became mandatory, one could play an all-jump pack army. Indeed, IIRC, a codex chapter had a reserve company of assault marines, so one could just claim to be using that unit.
Assault Marines and Bikers should be troop options to be fair.
Things like Lightning Claws, Powerfists, Chainfists are a little bit more special though.
Power Fists were available to non-Terminators in Second. It was even fairly popular on Devastator Veteran Sergeants - that were Veteran to prevent the Scooby Doo Assassin Effect, and Fisty to defend the HW dudes. And Calgar had his two fist look in power armor before he had it in Terminator Armor, before he had it in Gravis Armor.
Before the stupid org charts became mandatory, one could play an all-jump pack army. Indeed, IIRC, a codex chapter had a reserve company of assault marines, so one could just claim to be using that unit.
Assault Marines and Bikers should be troop options to be fair.
Assault Marines and Bikers are the quintessestial Fast Attack units.
The Rule Of Three is more the enemy here than anything else.
Things like Lightning Claws, Powerfists, Chainfists are a little bit more special though.
Power Fists were available to non-Terminators in Second. It was even fairly popular on Devastator Veteran Sergeants - that were Veteran to prevent the Scooby Doo Assassin Effect, and Fisty to defend the HW dudes. And Calgar had his two fist look in power armor before he had it in Terminator Armor, before he had it in Gravis Armor.
Power Fists on non-terminators has been a thing since the dawn of RT.
The original box of plastic beanie marines had pfs on the sprues.
I think there is a distinction in Termis having 'Truly a terminator weapon' and Termis being the only unit to meaningfully bring large quantities of a specific weapon.
AKA older ed it was very rare if not outright impossible to bring whole entire units of power fist equiv weapons and normally one unit had access to that, termis and PK nobs come to mind.
But the only truly termi exclusive weapon I can think of for the longest time was the cyclone missile launcher, all other options other models or units had access to in some degree or capacity, without hitting that possible count of PF/Chainfist/Thunderhammer
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think there is a distinction in Termis having 'Truly a terminator weapon' and Termis being the only unit to meaningfully bring large quantities of a specific weapon.
AKA older ed it was very rare if not outright impossible to bring whole entire units of power fist equiv weapons and normally one unit had access to that, termis and PK nobs come to mind.
But the only truly termi exclusive weapon I can think of for the longest time was the cyclone missile launcher, all other options other models or units had access to in some degree or capacity, without hitting that possible count of PF/Chainfist/Thunderhammer
Terminators remain the only infantry to access assault cannons and chainfists, although both appear on vehicles. Likewise for reaper autocannons.
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think there is a distinction in Termis having 'Truly a terminator weapon' and Termis being the only unit to meaningfully bring large quantities of a specific weapon.
AKA older ed it was very rare if not outright impossible to bring whole entire units of power fist equiv weapons and normally one unit had access to that, termis and PK nobs come to mind.
But the only truly termi exclusive weapon I can think of for the longest time was the cyclone missile launcher, all other options other models or units had access to in some degree or capacity, without hitting that possible count of PF/Chainfist/Thunderhammer
Terminators remain the only infantry to access assault cannons and chainfists, although both appear on vehicles. Likewise for reaper autocannons.
That is true, but doesn't that mean the Cyclone missile launcher is truly the only termi exclusive (apart from single unique weapons like Mace of absolution) to regular termi units? as the other guns ARE available on other units and potentially significant more quantities than on the termis themselves
(TL assault cannons, Defilers with multiuple reaper/helbrutes)
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: I think there is a distinction in Termis having 'Truly a terminator weapon' and Termis being the only unit to meaningfully bring large quantities of a specific weapon.
AKA older ed it was very rare if not outright impossible to bring whole entire units of power fist equiv weapons and normally one unit had access to that, termis and PK nobs come to mind.
But the only truly termi exclusive weapon I can think of for the longest time was the cyclone missile launcher, all other options other models or units had access to in some degree or capacity, without hitting that possible count of PF/Chainfist/Thunderhammer
Terminators remain the only infantry to access assault cannons and chainfists, although both appear on vehicles. Likewise for reaper autocannons.
That is true, but doesn't that mean the Cyclone missile launcher is truly the only termi exclusive (apart from single unique weapons like Mace of absolution) to regular termi units? as the other guns ARE available on other units and potentially significant more quantities than on the termis themselves
(TL assault cannons, Defilers with multiuple reaper/helbrutes)
I think this is fair, although the Terminator niche has always been infantry with the capability of tanks.
Edit: remembered that Contemptor dreadnoughts can get Cyclones, so even that is not unique.
Nevelon wrote:Back in the day the cyclone had unique rules, but since 3rd? It’s just been a 2 shot ML, much like the typhoon launcher.
Which is why I stuck them on top of my speeders.
Spoiler:
The main difference has been that it could be fired in addition to the stormbolter.
In addition to specific weapons, a major differentiating aspect of Terminators was that they could move and fire with Heavy weapons, which was a huge deal in comparison to other infantry. Another less appreciated factor was that Storm Bolters were Assault weapons, not Rapid Fire, during the 3-7th era. This meant that they could fire at full effect and then Charge into combat, which normal power armored Marines could not do.
These were significant mechanical distinctions they used to have, all of which have been eroded away.
Insectum7 wrote: These were significant mechanical distinctions they used to have, all of which have been eroded away.
The terminators of 2nd ed. really stood out for their unique capabilities. Real Rapid Fire meant two sustained fire dice if they remained stationary, integral targeters on already BS 5 troops, the only infantry capable of carrying an assault cannon, the ability for a full squad to use chainfists and/or thunder hammers...they truly felt like the elite - not just of space marines, but of all the armies in the game.
I remember the abject horror which greeted the 3rd edition rules for terminators. They vanished from the battlefield. Assault marines with power swords were in every way superior and cost far less. Sales of the models cratered and in desperation GW released supplemental rules to shore them up.
I'll also add a shout-out to the heavy flamer weapon option, which was very useful when fighting Tyranids. The thing to do was have two squads, the lead one using thunder hammer/storm shield or lighting claws and the one behind them having the heavy flamer to help "clean them off" backed up by massed storm bolter fire.
IIRC not being bothered by being on fire was one of the status effect perks they enjoyed.
You light most troops up, they took damage every turn and had to try to put the fire out. Guys in TDA were all “meh, whatever” and could go about their day.
Nevelon wrote: IIRC not being bothered by being on fire was one of the status effect perks they enjoyed.
You light most troops up, they took damage every turn and had to try to put the fire out. Guys in TDA were all “meh, whatever” and could go about their day.
Which is super funny considering at the time Space Hulk was still relatively fresh in peoples' minds and there the heavy flamer was absolutely lethal to your own troops. "Forgive me brother, for the mission" said the heavy gunner and let rip with flaming death in many, many missions where it all came down to your guys barreling down a pesky door and giving the flamernator just the slightest sliver of LoS to the object to be destroyed
Waaaay back when the Assault Terminators were released, the background explained due to the force of a Thunder Hammer’s strike, anyone not wearing Terminator Armour would be blasted off their feet.
I’ll check me 2nd Ed Wargear book and see if it continued into that edition.
Yes. Yes it did.
2nd Ed Wargear Book, page 12 wrote:Thunder Hammer.
This is a weapon used by Terminator Space Marines, normally used in conjunction with a storm shield. The thunder hammer is a large hammer with a power generator that only energises when the hammer strikes its target. This allows the weapon to store a tremendous amount of energy and release it only at the moment of impact, producing a terrific blast of energy and a sound like a crack of thunder. Were it not for his Terminator armour the Space Marine himself would probably be knocked over by the impact
Fun fact? Unusually for 2nd Ed, it didn’t roll to wound. Just straight to saves, doing D6 damage - and automatically penetrating Vehicle Armour.
Was a bloody nasty weapon.
Of course, back then a Lightning Claw was a souped up Powerfist (doing D3 damage, compared to the PF damage 1. That you could parry with.
Terminators have never been scarier than they were in 2nd Ed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Waaaay back when the Assault Terminators were released, the background explained due to the force of a Thunder Hammer’s strike, anyone not wearing Terminator Armour would be blasted off their feet.
One of my favourite short stories (Argent) has a normal human picking up a Marine crozius during a fight and smiting a heretic with it - it breaks both her arms and really messes her up.
Terminators have never been scarier than they were in 2nd Ed.
No question.
That's why Terminators truly felt elite - they had special goodies on top of other special goodies. That's the kind of stuff you would give only to the most veteran Space Marines.
As I recall, chainfists were also useful for cutting through terrain - building walls and such. Why bother with the door of the Battle Bunker when you can make your own?
Terminators have never been scarier than they were in 2nd Ed.
No question.
That's why Terminators truly felt elite - they had special goodies on top of other special goodies. That's the kind of stuff you would give only to the most veteran Space Marines.
As I recall, chainfists were also useful for cutting through terrain - building walls and such. Why bother with the door of the Battle Bunker when you can make your own?
S10, D D4, -6 to saves, Armour Pen D20+D4+D6+10. No specific bonus against vehicles, other than its worryingly reliable dice pool.
3rd Ed did a number on Terminators they never fully recovered from. The most egregious for me was Power Fists going to Strike Last. Not to mention Choppas reducing them to a 4+ save.
That’s not to say they were completely useless, just (much like Dreadnoughts up to 8th) a shadow of their former glory.
In fact, without over egging the pudding, a lot of Elite Infantry suffered in 3rd. Aspect Warriors went from terrors to….pretty crap. They didn’t get any tougher, but lost a lot of killing power.
Is it better now? Dunno. Ask someone with a clue about the modern game.
Terminators have never been scarier than they were in 2nd Ed.
No question.
That's why Terminators truly felt elite - they had special goodies on top of other special goodies. That's the kind of stuff you would give only to the most veteran Space Marines.
As I recall, chainfists were also useful for cutting through terrain - building walls and such. Why bother with the door of the Battle Bunker when you can make your own?
S10, D D4, -6 to saves, Armour Pen D20+D4+D6+10. No specific bonus against vehicles, other than its worryingly reliable dice pool.
3rd Ed did a number on Terminators they never fully recovered from. The most egregious for me was Power Fists going to Strike Last. Not to mention Choppas reducing them to a 4+ save.
That’s not to say they were completely useless, just (much like Dreadnoughts up to 8th) a shadow of their former glory.
In fact, without over egging the pudding, a lot of Elite Infantry suffered in 3rd. Aspect Warriors went from terrors to….pretty crap. They didn’t get any tougher, but lost a lot of killing power.
Is it better now? Dunno. Ask someone with a clue about the modern game.
The most egregious was going from 3+ on 2D6 vs modifiers i.e. still armor saving 25% of the time -before they still took an invuln - to not getting an armor save or an invuln (which they no longer had) against a plasma cannon.
Thats the thing though isn't it? At the scale of 2nd edition terminators were a scary looking centrepiece unit. Most infantry is as big or bigger these days, not to mention all the monsters and super vehicles.
I’m not as bothered by that meself. The original metal Terminators were kind of small for their day.
Then came their first, super basic plastic incarnation and metal alternatives which bulked them out a decent amount, but still left them not quite the right scale.
Breton wrote: The most egregious was going from 3+ on 2D6 vs modifiers i.e. still armor saving 25% of the time -before they still took an invuln - to not getting an armor save or an invuln (which they no longer had) against a plasma cannon.
Terminators definitely got it from both sides. They were super-survivable but also capable of dishing out punishment in ways no other infantry could match.
And yes, they were absolutely a centerpiece unit - and priced accordingly. And they weren't cheaty - you got what you paid for and while tough to kill, they were not invincible. A squad of them stuck in the open facing heavy weapons was eventually going to succumb.
I'm not longer current, and 2nd ed. definitely caused them to stay in the box whereas they were a favorite choice in 2nd. A far batter option was a tactical squad maxed out on plasma/meltas and then assault marines sans jump packs with power weapons.
Not only did you get more tactical options, they were far more survivable - which was utterly insane.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
Even if you found a Landraider kit, the points cost for the unit was enormous, meaning that was the better part of your army.
Also, using the rules as written, one good hit and the tank and everyone in it was dead.
(That's one of the crowdsourced changes to 40k that I have on my site. When vehicles get a "all passengers are killed" result, instead make an unmodified armor save for each. This not only makes transports less deadly, but creates the very cool and fluffy image of terminators sawing/bashing their way out of a crippled vehicle.)
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
When did the RT Land Raider go out of print? I know the “new” one came out sometime in 3rd.
In 3rd the fact that SBs were assault made the lack of movement a little more tolerable. They could still project a reasonable amount of firepower while moving, which is something regular bolters could not do at the time.
One big issue with terminators in the 3rd-7th era was durability. Especially durability per point. Being T4, they were still vulnerable to small arms. Toss enough rounds into them and wait for the 1s to come up on the armor saves. Even when the basic guys got the 5++ (which was not that far into 3rd) they died quick to all the AP2 stuff out there. So the only thing they were really efficient tanking was mid/low volume non AP attacks. But most lists had more then enough of the other types of fire to just cash them out.
Rules creep defiantly didn’t do them any favors. The storm bolter used to have some major perks, but those were eroded over time. Escalation with the amount and quality of fire armies could put out just highlighted the fact that they were vulnerable to two fairly broad classes of it.
When did the RT Land Raider go out of print? I know the “new” one came out sometime in 3rd.
I'm not sure that they ever announced a halt in production, but by the time I was playing they were scarce. GW was busy cranking out new Eldar tanks, a revised Predator, the Whirlwind, etc. That being said, they were not uncommon in the tabletop and I actually got one on ebay for a non-insane price (which I subsequently sold for an insane price).
In 3rd the fact that SBs were assault made the lack of movement a little more tolerable. They could still project a reasonable amount of firepower while moving, which is something regular bolters could not do at the time.
One big issue with terminators in the 3rd-7th era was durability. Especially durability per point.
Terminators were wrecked by multiple factors. The change of the entire turn sequence, movement mechanics and cover meant that you could no longer have a heavily armored unit in hard cover dominate a space of the board with its firepower. A classic terminator squad with 4 storm bolters and an assault cannon could assert fire dominance and require major effort to overcome or suppress. That's 8 sustained fire dice of bolter fire, usually rolling for 2s to hit and backed by either the assault cannon in its prime or the Cyclone.
In the close combat role terminators were pretty much peerless adversaries. Lighting claws and thunder hammers could kill just about anything out there and the multiple parries gave higher WS opponents fits. Again, you paid a lot for them, they had limited reach and mobility, but they were wonderfully effective and fluffy.
With cover and armor being either/or, battlefields opened up, people began using linear tactics and of course Rhino rushes and power swords could pretty much annihilate terminators at a fraction of the points cost. The emphasis on AP 2 weapons overnight transformed the Razorback from a decent anti-vehicle track to a world-beating Marine slayer.
I'm getting back into gaming building a new group and they've quite receptive to going back to 2nd (partly because all their current books are about to become worthless) and they are fascinated by how awesome many units used to be. Wait till they learn about dreadnoughts!
Not sure when it went out of production. But I was playing 2nd Ed from more or less the start, and I don’t recall ever seeing Landraider on sale. Indeed I managed to buy a knackered one and kitbash it back it to health. And in my local GW, I was the only player with one.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Not sure when it went out of production. But I was playing 2nd Ed from more or less the start, and I don’t recall ever seeing Landraider on sale. Indeed I managed to buy a knackered one and kitbash it back it to health. And in my local GW, I was the only player with one.
Codex: Space Wolves (1994) has an advertisement for it in the back of the book. None of the subsequent Marine books do.
It definitely got reboxed to 2nd Ed Standard. But when that first started happening across the range I couldn’t tell you,
Automatically Appended Next Post: For 10th?
Thunder Hammers dish out Mortal Wounds, only when wielded in Terminator Armour.
Lightning Claws +1 Attack, S6, AP-?, D1, but re-roll hits and wounds to represent the flurry of attacks and blades the Terminator can unleash with proper training.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
Even if you found a Landraider kit, the points cost for the unit was enormous, meaning that was the better part of your army.
Very incorrect! A Land Raider during 2nd edition was 220 points . . . compared to the starting price of a Tactical Squads 300. Add a Missile Launcher, Flamer and Powerfist you're looking at a 370ish point unit to the Land Raiders 220 (+5 for Auto Launchers) 225.
Insectum7 wrote: These were significant mechanical distinctions they used to have, all of which have been eroded away.
I remember the abject horror which greeted the 3rd edition rules for terminators. They vanished from the battlefield. Assault marines with power swords were in every way superior and cost far less. Sales of the models cratered and in desperation GW released supplemental rules to shore them up.
Assault Marines could not get Power Weapons in 3rd edition. Only the Sergeant got to upgrade his Chainsword. Blood Angels Honour Guard could get Power Weapons, but that's a different beast.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
In 3rd the fact that SBs were assault made the lack of movement a little more tolerable. They could still project a reasonable amount of firepower while moving, which is something regular bolters could not do at the time.
The secret to using Terminators in those editions was to leverage the fact that they could both shoot AND Assault in the same turn. In that way, they could put out an incredible amount of lethality. No, they couldn't just camp in cover anymore, but the 3rd edition paradigm was the era in which you had to actually start moving your Marines around (and the cover save method encouraged this).
Terminators functioned as aggressive, line breaking units, or counter-punch units to opposition assaults.
Insectum7 wrote: Very incorrect! A Land Raider during 2nd edition was 220 points . . . compared to the starting price of a Tactical Squads 300. Add a Missile Launcher, Flamer and Powerfist you're looking at a 370ish point unit to the Land Raiders 220 (+5 for Auto Launchers) 225.
I was referring to the points cost of the Land Raider and the Terminators combined, which made for one very expensive (if durable) maneuver element.
Assault Marines could not get Power Weapons in 3rd edition. Only the Sergeant got to upgrade his Chainsword. Blood Angels Honour Guard could get Power Weapons, but that's a different beast.
The combat was abstracted, though, so if you had a power weapon in contact, it could kill people it wasn't touching, so if you took a veteran sergeant with power weapon and pistol, terminator honors and also a character with a power weapon, one could scythe through just about anything - at least for a while.
No, they couldn't just camp in cover anymore, but the 3rd edition paradigm was the era in which you had to actually start moving your Marines around (and the cover save method encouraged this).
You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this part because tanks moved agonizingly slow in 3rd - infantry could actually outrun them!
Terminators used defensively in 2nd were something of a waste, and typically would only be deployed that way because either the player was overcautious or they were defending a critical mission objective (i.e. Take and Hold or Bunker Assault)
Either way, they were much diminished in 3rd and my Terminators collected dust because they simply weren't worth the points for what they did. Assault marines sans jump packs were just as effective as counter-punchers (particularly when backed by a Chaplain and riding around in a Marine-slaying Razorback).
Insectum7 wrote: Very incorrect! A Land Raider during 2nd edition was 220 points . . . compared to the starting price of a Tactical Squads 300. Add a Missile Launcher, Flamer and Powerfist you're looking at a 370ish point unit to the Land Raiders 220 (+5 for Auto Launchers) 225.
I was referring to the points cost of the Land Raider and the Terminators combined, which made for one very expensive (if durable) maneuver element.
Assault Marines could not get Power Weapons in 3rd edition. Only the Sergeant got to upgrade his Chainsword. Blood Angels Honour Guard could get Power Weapons, but that's a different beast.
The combat was abstracted, though, so if you had a power weapon in contact, it could kill people it wasn't touching, so if you took a veteran sergeant with power weapon and pistol, terminator honors and also a character with a power weapon, one could scythe through just about anything - at least for a while.
No, they couldn't just camp in cover anymore, but the 3rd edition paradigm was the era in which you had to actually start moving your Marines around (and the cover save method encouraged this).
You and I will just have to agree to disagree on this part because tanks moved agonizingly slow in 3rd - infantry could actually outrun them!
Terminators used defensively in 2nd were something of a waste, and typically would only be deployed that way because either the player was overcautious or they were defending a critical mission objective (i.e. Take and Hold or Bunker Assault)
Either way, they were much diminished in 3rd and my Terminators collected dust because they simply weren't worth the points for what they did. Assault marines sans jump packs were just as effective as counter-punchers (particularly when backed by a Chaplain and riding around in a Marine-slaying Razorback).
Well I think one has to admit that bringing a character alongside your Assault Squad is quite a different thing than bringing an Assault Squad alone. May as well bring the same character along with the Terminators at that point.
The abstracted combat actually worked very well for the Terminators if you coordinated your assaults well. If you charged against a unit with a sergeant, the play was to stick a secondary squad (like Tacticals) against the sergeant. Then the sergeant could only strike against the PA guys, and the Terminators could weather the mook atracks with their 2+ saves. Then the Terminators struck with the full force of all those Powerfist attacks. The matchup meant that the opposing sergeant can't hit the Terminators, but the Terminator attacks carried through to the sarge. Win/win.
Not sure why you bring up tank movement.
I understand that Terminators in 3rd weren't as shiny as they were in 2nd. But imo they did bring their own, if slightly different, utility. They were really good in 4th ed, with the Assault Cannon upgrade and the ability to bring two of them in a 5 man squad.
It also seems worth mentioning that Terminators in 2nd had their durability 'increased' because you could just screen them, since you could only shoot the closest squad.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: A far batter option was a tactical squad maxed out on plasma/meltas and then assault marines sans jump packs with power weapons.
Not only did you get more tactical options, they were far more survivable - which was utterly insane.
Didn't 3rd also turn all those Power Weapons into generic close combat weapons?
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
It wasn't sold for most of 2E, but the new Landraider kit did eventually come out for 2E (I think) and you could put them in there. Though it may have been later. I have memories of Calgar and some Terminators in a Land Raider, but no memory of the edition or his armor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: True on the cost, and you’d think I’d constantly remember transporting troops in 2nd Ed was risky at best, but no 😂😂
I remember transporting in 2E to be much less risky than now. It took a "lucky" shot to destroy in 2E, now it just takes enough normal shots.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
It wasn't sold for most of 2E, but the new Landraider kit did eventually come out for 2E (I think) and you could put them in there. Though it may have been later. I have memories of Calgar and some Terminators in a Land Raider, but no memory of the edition or his armor.
The new Landraider arrived in '99. A little less than a year into 3e.
They could teleport, yes. But that was 50% of the unit’s points (unless Abaddon was in your list). They could ride in Landraider, except those weren’t actually sold during 2nd Ed.
It wasn't sold for most of 2E, but the new Landraider kit did eventually come out for 2E (I think) and you could put them in there. Though it may have been later. I have memories of Calgar and some Terminators in a Land Raider, but no memory of the edition or his armor.
The new Landraider arrived in '99. A little less than a year into 3e.
Maybe we played 2E longer, or maybe I'm remembering 5E or something when Terminators weren't as bad. I dunno.
Terminators were never really “bad” but they were often an inefficient use of the points to get jobs done. I fielded them all the time and was generally happy with them. But due to other, more effective/efficient options, they got slandered as hot garbage.
TH/SS were considered decent more of the time than basic tactical terminators. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of the 3++ which gave them the resilience they always claimed to have.
Core codex assault marines could have plasma pistols on 2 guys per squad (even 5 man) I’m not sure they could take flamers in 3rd. If you were allowed you wouldn’t, as the plasma pistols were only 5 points and a no brainer. Only power weapon was the sarge. SW/BA/DA might have had different options.
3rd was the time of the chaplain, at least around here. CC was a lot more viable, and they got all the toys (PW, invuln) for free. Almost no re-rolls back then, so his abilities let you leverage the reasonably low volume of attacks from the terminators power fists into a lot of death. To use an example relevant to this thread.
At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly and “damn kids”? If you weren’t playing in 2nd Ed, you don’t know just how far they fell in 3rd.
They were points intensive, but as deadly as they were resilient. They felt like not just the Elite of the Elite, but the Elite of the Elite of the Elite.
Being a Veteran wasn’t enough, you had to show yourself good enough to get the training to wear Terminator Armour.
Yes they would need support to prevent being completely swamped, but they could still happily punch their weight and then some. And when you lost them in battle, your army felt that loss.
And I don’t think my Rose Tinteds are particularly strong or vision skewing here. Yes they are absolutely on, but not to the point of nostalgic delusion.
Likewise Marine Dreadnoughts. They had better ranged weapons, could ignore the first jam on any sustained fire (but could still detonate their Assault Cannon), and could do a nifty rotate and tear attack in combat. Come 3rd Ed and they were lightly armoured, not terribly useful points sinks with very little special about them.
But in terms of openness, I do consider 3rd and to some extent 4th the Editions that threw baby out with the bath water. Much as I adore 2nd Ed, it was a messy arsed game that was overly complex. But man did the design team go waaaaay too far.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: And I don’t think my Rose Tinteds are particularly strong or vision skewing here. Yes they are absolutely on, but not to the point of nostalgic delusion.
Likewise Marine Dreadnoughts. They had better ranged weapons, could ignore the first jam on any sustained fire (but could still detonate their Assault Cannon), and could do a nifty rotate and tear attack in combat. Come 3rd Ed and they were lightly armoured, not terribly useful points sinks with very little special about them.
Since I still play 2nd, I can say you're recollections are rooted in fact, not nostalgia.
Dreadnoughts were useful in 3rd as mobile gun platforms. I chose the plasma/missile launcher combo for AP 2/3 maximization. I hated what they did to the assault cannon.
I guess one area where terminators got better in 3rd was that their mobility issue went a way. If you got in on a vehicle, it was initially impossible for them to run away! (Tanks could only move 12" so infantry could move 6" and assault 6" thereby keeping pace. Later on this changed this.)
The Assault Cannon was done dirty for 3rd, that's definitely true. But to be fair, in 2nd edition it was arguably the single best weapon in the game. Maaaybe a bit too good.
Insectum7 wrote: The Assault Cannon was done dirty for 3rd, that's definitely true. But to be fair, in 2nd edition it was arguably the single best weapon in the game. Maaaybe a bit too good.
Incredibly fun though.
Also very rare! Unless you were Dark Angels, you needed a Terminator unit to access it. And if you were Dark Angels, you had Deathwing and Ravenwing.
Oh. And I think Sentinels had them as well.
Speaking of Ravenwing? Master of the Ravenwing. Armour Piercing Ammo Wargear card. He’s the pilot, see. And the Pilot fires the underslung weapon. Amazing combo to make Nasty Things just….go away. Very quickly.
Insectum7 wrote: The Assault Cannon was done dirty for 3rd, that's definitely true. But to be fair, in 2nd edition it was arguably the single best weapon in the game. Maaaybe a bit too good.
Incredibly fun though.
Also very rare! Unless you were Dark Angels, you needed a Terminator unit to access it. And if you were Dark Angels, you had Deathwing and Ravenwing.
Oh. And I think Sentinels had them as well.
You missed Dreadnoughts! The best platform for the Assault Cannon.
Buuuuuut . . . Using the vehicle conversion rules in Dark Millenium you could swap Assault Cannons on to other platforms. I confess I occasionally ran a UM colored Ravenwing Land Speeder in 2nd using those rules.
Insectum7 wrote: You missed Dreadnoughts! The best platform for the Assault Cannon.
Buuuuuut . . . Using the vehicle conversion rules in Dark Millenium you could swap Assault Cannons on to other platforms. I confess I occasionally ran a UM colored Ravenwing Land Speeder in 2nd using those rules.
For a while we had a Land Raider Crusader in the collection here. We did the points from DM and it was...interesting.
Twin-linked assault cannon generating 6 sustained fire dice left quite a mark, but it rarely fired more than twice a game.
And all those storm bolters? Yeah. I sold it partly out of a desire to keep our 2nd ed. "pure" and partly because it didn't really work.
One could (and I will) argue that GW purposely wrecks weapons to sell other models. In 3rd, the assault cannon Dreadnought was next to useless. Against infantry, you were better off with twin-linked heavy bolters. Against power armor, plasma was the way to go.
I will say that I think it is perfectly appropriate to have a clearly superior weapon in any gaming system, especially if it is limited. That's how the world works.
Not to grind too many gears in transition, but when I looked at how to do melee weapons in Conqueror, I avoided any kind of GW-ish balancing and there is a clear hierarchy within the game, just as in real life. Pikemen can pretty much destroy swordsmen, which is why they replaced them. Against armored opponents, maces are better than swords. And so on - the trick is to make the points balance things out so you have a fun game.
Assault cannon were rare and wonderful items, but also finicky at awkward times.
So yes, both Terminators and Dreadnoughts in 2nd perfectly aligned with the fluff of them being rare and powerful weapons only used in special circumstances.
I think "powerful but rare" is a perfectly fine thing to have, but the 2nd ed Assault Cannon pushed the boundaries when each "shot" struck a vehicle with the same armor penetration as a Krak Missile.
And as for "rare", well . . . I'm sure you're aware of the Wolf Guard Terminators horrorshow. And even standard Marines could double up Assault Cannons on Dreadnoughts, and Dreadnoughts were comparatively cheap. Three Dreads with double Assault Cannons wouldn't be particularly prohibitive in points, and ye-gads the firepower!
The quick version is 115 for a Dreadnought, plus 45 points for each Assault Cannon. Then 5 for Auto Launchers because you alwats want Auto Launchers. 210 points.
Take four of those in your 2k army. 840
Or, screw it, a Dreadnought with quad Heavy Bolters is (115+30+30+5) 180. So howabouts 3 dual Assault Cannon 'Noughts and two Quad Heavy Bolter 'Noughts for 990 points, just under your 50% Support allotment. Fill the other 1k with approriate supporting assets and make many a 2nd ed player cry with 34 sustained fire dice, ignoring some jams, at BS 6+1.
There's lots to love about 2nd ed, and it's evocative in some ways that no subsequent editions ever matched. But you could do unbelievably cruel things in it, perhaps only matched by 7th edition in terms of potential lopsidedness.
As I’ve been spelunking into the Rogue Trader era over the past few years, the more it becomes apparent 2nd Ed was pretty much the true dawn of 40K as we know it.
The background was rationalised and codified. Most stuff made it through, but a bunch didn’t. And for the most part, I think they made the right calls on that.
The rules and general pecking order we know today comes predominantly from 2nd Ed, though Marines were toughened up over Rogue Trader’s run, they were set proper in 2nd Ed.
To use a customary crap analogy, 2nd Ed is the movie to Rogue Trader’s screen play. Yes some stuff it would’ve been nice to keep was excised, but for the sake of plot and pacing.
Though one book I am keen to get my hands on again is the rulebook for Inquisitor, as that represents a significant development in Imperial Mythos I’m nowhere near as familiar with as I’d like.
The 2E rules for the Thunder hammer were toned down somewhat from RT. In RT you had an alternate mode, a hail mary. you could expend all the power in one blow, resulting in an explosion, of d6" radius, with the same autowound -5 save, but causing d6 x d6 damage. the user might survive, since terminators in RT always saved on at least a 6.
Interestingly, the assault terminators weren't quite as survivable as standard terminators, some had a storm shield which gave an additional save, but Standard terminators could all take Refractor fields. In RT I recall invulnerable saves were incredibly uncommon, and you could layer saves sometimes. The displacer field save was taken before any armour save you had and was not modified (and then moved you away), and depending on how you or your GM ruled it, you could either add the save of 1 armour and 1 field together, or take them sequentially. Field saves were modified as usual (except displacer fields) so you could add your 5+ save to your terminators 2+ save, or take a 2+ followed by a 5+. If you combined them, you would end up on a 0+ save. and in RT, your armour saves did not fail on an unmodified roll of a 1. you would need some serious firepower to shift them. at 550 points for 5 (with refractor fields) they were a bit pricey (for comparison, 10 tactical marines with a standard loadout were 250 points)
As previous posters have said, in 3E plasma with AP2 killed terminators dead, even with the Crux Terminatis introduced about 1 year in, which is weird. In RT and 2E plasma were high strength fairly low AP (-2) giving them, without any field saves, a 50% chance of surviving a hit on 1d6 and an 83% chance on 2d6 for 2E.
If i recall, the only non heavy weapon, non close combat weapon that could reliably kill terminators was a meltagun. in RT it was move or fire, and in 2E it was a lethal short range face smasher. the short range being countered by the fact you had to get it into range of terminators, in RT and 2E your guys moved a lot slower, and they probably wouldn't let that happen anyway.
The closest i can remember in RT to a Chainfist being carried by power armoured troops was the las cutter. this was comically short ranged (3") automatically lethal to whatever it hit, and reduced your move by 3". both served the same function in games, basically to crack open bulkheads, possibly vehicles. but the chainfist on TDA was massively more mobile. Las Cutters needed either lots of suspensors, a dreadnought, robot, or other vehicle to get them round.
@Grotsnick: That's sort of right. 2nd ed 'hardened' 40k into it's full form in many ways. But the move from 2nd to 3rd did a number of very important things too. Races stopped sharing many weapon profiles, as Orks used Bolters in 2nd, and Eldar Lascannons. And a major shift happened to Orks, who gained a much more Assault-centric stat profile and a large aesthetic shift into what we have today, more or less. No more madboyz. No more BS 3. Etc. And it's a shame because a lot of that pre-3rd Orkiness was really special.
"Modern" orks are cool too, but it would have been nice to retain some more of the older design.
Orks got changed into "Generic Goffs" as a result of Gorkamorka, and lost so much of their flavour. It took a long time for the 'fun' of Orks to come back.
One could (and I will) argue that GW purposely wrecks weapons to sell other models. In 3rd, the assault cannon Dreadnought was next to useless. Against infantry, you were better off with twin-linked heavy bolters. Against power armor, plasma was the way to go.
Are you aware that your theory describes the two weapons that were least available for Dreadnoughts?
I believe the metal 3rd edition dreads came with multi-meltas, assault cannons or lascannons. iirc only the Chaos dread had a plasma cannon and heavy bolter, and they were fat with Chaos iconography and difficult to convert for use on loyalist models. When the plastic dreadnought came out it came with lascannon and assault cannon.
In other words, your theory sounds dumb. They decided to obsolete assault cannon dreadnoughts and then continue releasing dreadnought kits without the weapons that you consider most efficient? (Another contention I disagree with, btw; the lascannon/missile launcher dread was the most efficient build from 3rd to 4th edition).
The Assault Cannon took a weird hit in 3rd. It went from almost being a multi-shot Krak launcher in 2nd Ed into something that just wasn't worth bothering with. Pity, too, as I always thought it was one of the coolest weapons in 40k at the time.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Orks got changed into "Generic Goffs" as a result of Gorkamorka, and lost so much of their flavour. It took a long time for the 'fun' of Orks to come back.
It still isn't there. They made a mistake trying to lift Doctrines and Purity straight from Space Marines and turning it into a straight jacket for Orks. Orks should have gotten something different that does similar but works for them.
To say that Orks don't have any of their fun returned because of their Klan special rules is a bit daft (and short sighted), especially in a world where there's a Dragster that uses a Shokk Attack Gun to teleport itself around the table, and we have Lootaz and Flash Gitz, and a proper Battlewagon back on the table.
When the Orks got Jervised in 3rd Ed (although you could argue that this time it was Andy Chambers' fault), they lost their flavour completely. The Klans were naught but paint jobs (assuming they showed up at all outside of Goffs). All their wacky equipment got replaced with the most bog-standard equipment around. All the various squad weapons they had went away*. Their artillery, a real source of comedy and danger - Splatter Kannons, Squig Catapults, Pulsa Rokkits, Smasha Gunz, Traktor Kannonz and even the Shokk Attack Gun - were replaced by the Kannon, Lobba and Zzapp gun. Whoa there! Don't have all the fun at once there GW. Kustom Kombi-Weapons? Telescopic Legs? Gyrostabilised monowheel? Gone! But it's ok, because we got... Stikkbombaz. Great.
What we have today is so far removed from the doldrums of 3rd Ed Orks that you just can't pretend that we still have no fun/flavour.
*As mentioned above, this to ensure that the various races weren't all using the same technology, but whereas the Eldar got new versions of everything that had previously existed (Lascannon --> Bright Lance, Heavy Plasma Gun --> Starcannon, etc.) the Orks got no great equivalencies. And they got Flanderized to boot, so everything was BS2 because "Orks are bad shots lol" even though was (and still is) a massive generalisation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: To say that Orks don't have any of their fun returned because of their Klan special rules is a bit daft (and short sighted), especially in a world where there's a Dragster that uses a Shokk Attack Gun to teleport itself around the table, and we have Lootaz and Flash Gitz, and a proper Battlewagon back on the table.
That's a gimmick. Its a Thudd Gun Template. Purity was a mistake for Orks where the WAAGH attracts all kinds and each clan (I can't bring myself to use the K here) was more of a flavor specialist tied to an iconic unit. What they should have done is an If-Then-Else based on the Warboss's Clan. If your Warboss is X, then do this with these units/keywords if its not those units, do nothing - and then you'd get some bonuses and drawbacks that are fluffy. Each faction/subfaction should fit into the paradigm box they've built. Each faction/subfaction should also break that paradigm in a unique way. Orks probably should have done it with subfaction souping.
When the Orks got Jervised in 3rd Ed (although you could argue that this time it was Andy Chambers' fault), they lost their flavour completely. The Klans were naught but paint jobs (assuming they showed up at all outside of Goffs). All their wacky equipment got replaced with the most bog-standard equipment around. All the various squad weapons they had went away*. Their artillery, a real source of comedy and danger - Splatter Kannons, Squig Catapults, Pulsa Rokkits, Smasha Gunz, Traktor Kannonz and even the Shokk Attack Gun - were replaced by the Kannon, Lobba and Zzapp gun. Whoa there! Don't have all the fun at once there GW. Kustom Kombi-Weapons? Telescopic Legs? Gyrostabilised monowheel? Gone! But it's ok, because we got... Stikkbombaz. Great.
What we have today is so far removed from the doldrums of 3rd Ed Orks that you just can't pretend that we still have no fun/flavour.
*As mentioned above, this to ensure that the various races weren't all using the same technology, but whereas the Eldar got new versions of everything that had previously existed (Lascannon --> Bright Lance, Heavy Plasma Gun --> Starcannon, etc.) the Orks got no great equivalencies. And they got Flanderized to boot, so everything was BS2 because "Orks are bad shots lol" even though was (and still is) a massive generalisation.
That speaks to my point. Had they used Purity/Doctrines as a basic template but bent Doctrines to Orks instead of bending Orks to Doctrines, you might have seen something like Boys have the <Clan> Keyword. Lootas have the <Deathskulls> keyword. If your Warboss is Goff, the Boys get the Goff keyword and Goff bonuses (What doesn't really matter +1A, +2" Charge range, whatever its an example not a proposal), but the Deathskull Lootas always get the Deathskull keyword which gives an explicity cumulative +1 to hit to override the limit of 1 +1. If your Warboss is Deathskull the Boys get the Deathskull keyword and a Cumulative +1 there too - and maybe the Deathskull Lootas get a cumulative +2. The point is that Orks shouldn't have been pure, they should have been molded by the Boss.
H.B.M.C. wrote: None of that means that their fun hasn't come back.
You just disagree with how they've done Klan rules.
Not only that, but I blame how they've done those rules for what's a lot of what's happened to orks.
Remember the original point you made that I quoted:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Orks got changed into "Generic Goffs" as a result of Gorkamorka, and lost so much of their flavour. It took a long time for the 'fun' of Orks to come back.
And you pointed out:
Their artillery, a real source of comedy and danger - Splatter Kannons, Squig Catapults, Pulsa Rokkits, Smasha Gunz, Traktor Kannonz and even the Shokk Attack Gun - were replaced by the Kannon, Lobba and Zzapp gun. Whoa there! Don't have all the fun at once there GW. Kustom Kombi-Weapons? Telescopic Legs? Gyrostabilised monowheel? Gone! But it's ok, because we got... Stikkbombaz. Great
While your list of fun that's come back is:
there's a Dragster that uses a Shokk Attack Gun to teleport itself around the table, and we have Lootaz and Flash Gitz, and a proper Battlewagon
I'm not quite sure how you can rail against the homogenization of Orks, make a long list of the "fun" things that were taken away that is longer than the list of "fun" things that have been brought back, then object when someone else points to something that exacerbated the issue and points out they don't have all their fun back.
The new Orknbuggies are strong favourites of mine.
Not only are they Wacky Races in spaaaaace, but they’re just very Orky, showing off that a wealthy Ork can become utterly obsessed with one aspect of war, like a deranged Exarch.
My favourite remains the Rukka Trukk, because I personally am obsessed with Squigs, and weaponised Squigs are always hilarious.
Sure there’s no particular customisation allowed. And the kits remove the need to scratch build and kit bash. But removing is not the same as banning. Stick to the golden rule of “don’t take the piss” and you can still field your conversions and scratch builds.
Would I like to see more? Of course. Orks are great. But right now I’d say (rules entirely aside as those are easily fixed with the stroke of a pen if needed, and I couldn’t tell you if it is needed) Orks are in a really good position in terms of army aesthetic.
Now, next I’d like to see a Weirdboy Warphead in a mobile cell, so he can be driven to wherever the fighting is thickest, and prodded to unleash amusing effects. Or indeed away from them when he gets a bit overexcited and the Boyz start to feel a bit funny. Why yes, that should absolutely be driven by a Grot, who is less susceptible to ‘Ead Bangz…and most certainly can be trusted to definitely every time actually drive away, and serves no risk of hanging around for a bit of explodey head type vengeance on his bigger tormentors.
Altruizine wrote: In other words, your theory sounds dumb. They decided to obsolete assault cannon dreadnoughts and then continue releasing dreadnought kits without the weapons that you consider most efficient? (Another contention I disagree with, btw; the lascannon/missile launcher dread was the most efficient build from 3rd to 4th edition). [Emphasis added]
That isn't the refutation that you think it is. GW made the worst weapon option the cheapest. If you wanted the optimum option, you had to either buy a Chaos metal kit and bash it or go through their bitz service (I chose the former option).
This is no different than making the Forgeworld variants better than the standard off-the-shelf stuff.
I should add that I was also quite fond of the lascannon-missile launcher version.
Insectum7 wrote: The quick version is 115 for a Dreadnought, plus 45 points for each Assault Cannon. Then 5 for Auto Launchers because you alwats want Auto Launchers. 210 points.
Take four of those in your 2k army. 840
Or, screw it, a Dreadnought with quad Heavy Bolters is (115+30+30+5) 180. So howabouts 3 dual Assault Cannon 'Noughts and two Quad Heavy Bolter 'Noughts for 990 points, just under your 50% Support allotment. Fill the other 1k with approriate supporting assets and make many a 2nd ed player cry with 34 sustained fire dice, ignoring some jams, at BS 6+1.
To do that, one would have to go through considerable effort. I never saw a dual assault-cannon dread, but I knew someone who saw one. (How's that for a reliable source?)
Look, the thing about 2nd was always that it was a collaborative game. The "tournament mentality" was in full force with 3rd, and led people to expect balance that simply wasn't there.
Yes, 20 Space Wolf terminators with assault cannons was legal, but was it actually useful? You have one giant unit that has to stay in cohesion and is incapable of being transported. Same with the Dreadnought variants - throwing that many sustained fire dice means jams - and you only get to ignore one.
BTW, the assault cannon was excellent, but not infallible. There was armor that krak missiles struggled against, which argued against going all-in on them.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for having the freedom to experiment and come up with scenarios. That mentality is long gone.
That isn't the refutation that you think it is. GW made the worst weapon option the cheapest. If you wanted the optimum option, you had to either buy a Chaos metal kit and bash it or go through their bitz service (I chose the former option).
This is no different than making the Forgeworld variants better than the standard off-the-shelf stuff.
I should add that I was also quite fond of the lascannon-missile launcher version.
Qanon brain.
2nd edition released 4Q 1993.
The first metal castaferrum pattern dreads with assault cannons are from 1995ish and the rest of the metal editions came out over the next couple years.
3rd edition released 4Q 1998. At that time the DA dread, containing the optimum option (las/ml) for 3rd edition, was available (as well as the Chaos dread).
Plastic dreadnought released 1Q 2001, containing the optimum option (las/ml) for 3rd edition.
4th edition released 3Q 2004, making the other option in the plastic kit, the assault cannon, an excellent choice.
Your theory is that they intentionally broke assault cannons, which were not available until midway through 2nd edition, in order to encourage some unknown percentage of players (the subset of 2nd edition players who had bought non-DA, non-Chaos dread kits) to mail-order Forgeworld parts, but then abandoned this plan about a year later when the plastic Dreadnought was designed to come stock with the best options? Alpha plus intellect, brother.
Blood Angels (Multi Melta and Powerfist)
Bjorn the Fell Handed
Ultramarines (Assault Cannon and Powerfist)
Dark Angels (Lascannon and Missile Launcher)
Bjorn did come along fairly quickly - but had all sorts of iconography on the Assault Cannon.
As for 3rd? It’s probably more the other weapons were cack. Nothing special about mounting them on your now soft and squishy Dreadnought. Multi-Melta lost its blast, becoming a one die wonder and had to get to half range to bother most stuff. Assault Cannon became a bad joke. 24”, S6, AP4 - oh and could still explode on you. Powerfist remained hitty as it didn’t strike last, but the Dreadnought didn’t really have the attacks to fight its way clear of anything, so you’d just bundle it with whatever chaff unit you might have, and have a character lurking to keep their Ld up. Lascannon and Missile Launcher could mess up vehicle squadrons and indeed blow up some light infantry. So I argue it’s less LC/ML was good, just that Dreadnoughts were crap, with crap weapons, LC/ML merely being the least cack option?
This isn't' Twitter, and the UK company Games Workshop has nothing to do with American political parties.
You're not entirely wrong, but the Qanon freaks did spread to other countries too. It's not a high amount, but anything greater than zero is pretty bad LOL
Insectum7 wrote: The quick version is 115 for a Dreadnought, plus 45 points for each Assault Cannon. Then 5 for Auto Launchers because you alwats want Auto Launchers. 210 points.
Take four of those in your 2k army. 840
Or, screw it, a Dreadnought with quad Heavy Bolters is (115+30+30+5) 180. So howabouts 3 dual Assault Cannon 'Noughts and two Quad Heavy Bolter 'Noughts for 990 points, just under your 50% Support allotment. Fill the other 1k with approriate supporting assets and make many a 2nd ed player cry with 34 sustained fire dice, ignoring some jams, at BS 6+1.
To do that, one would have to go through considerable effort. I never saw a dual assault-cannon dread, but I knew someone who saw one. (How's that for a reliable source?)
Or play with proxies, which many people do. My group in 2nd certainly did. These days you'd just print 'em. Personally I put in the work to customize a Missile Launcher for the left arm.
Look, the thing about 2nd was always that it was a collaborative game. The "tournament mentality" was in full force with 3rd, and led people to expect balance that simply wasn't there.
It's not like a hyper-competetive mindset didn't exist in 2nd. There are enough stories about arrays of Pulsa Rokkits and armies of 100+ Hormagaunts around. My buddy with the 9-12 Orks in Mega Armor with Lascannons (and other gear), all proxied, attests to that. I encountered the super Wolf Guard squad many times too.
Yes, 20 Space Wolf terminators with assault cannons was legal, but was it actually useful? You have one giant unit that has to stay in cohesion and is incapable of being transported. Same with the Dreadnought variants - throwing that many sustained fire dice means jams - and you only get to ignore one.
Well you just spent a number of posts telling us how awesome Terminators were in 2nd edition. Each of those Terminators has sustained fire dice already. Wolf Guard are the same unit, except able to spam some of the best weapons in the game. Yeah, that was a dangerous unit.
Dreadnoughts were better Ballistic Skill, able to ignore the first Jam on the sustained fire dice, and unlike Wolf Guard didn't have to be deployed as one unit if you took multiple. Spamming Dreadnoughts might leave you with some jammed guns, but if the opposing army is already crippled and can't effectively retaliate, it hardly matters.
BTW, the assault cannon was excellent, but not infallible. There was armor that krak missiles struggled against, which argued against going all-in on them.
The only thing I can think of that an Assault Cannon might struggle against is a Bunker (although I forget the AV of those) Even the most armored vehicles had weak points in tracks and sponsons. Even against heavier armor sections, striking 4-6 times with the Assault Cannon still gave you comparable or better chances than a single [or Twin] Lascannon. The Assault Cannon was excellent against infantry, monstrous creatures and vehicles. It covered all bases except possibly ultra spammy light infantry (which the other 1k of your army and those quad Heavy Bolter 'Noughts could balance for).
This isn't' Twitter, and the UK company Games Workshop has nothing to do with American political parties.
And describing a theory as "Qanon brained" doesn't depend on a relation to American parties. But thank you for demonstrating your out-of-touchness with culture! I'm sure that isolation and ignorance will give people additional context for your posting.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Checked me books. I am going insane. No pics of the new Dreadnought anywhere in the boxed set.
I know the 2nd Ed book had a few Datafax cards. IIRC, it would have been Land Raider, Rhino, Dreadnought, Predator (?), Ork Dread and Battlewagon. I think the original Dread Datafax just had a quote where the picture should be, and the rest had artwork. Later on they had miniature pictures.
So there's a good chance we had rules for all the various Dread weapons, even if the specific minis weren't around yet. Then Dark Millennium hit and that had additional rules for Dread weaponry (like higher damage chart rolls for TL-Las, and reduced risk of jamming with the Assault Cannon, and so on). It might have had replacement Datafaxes with proper mini pics as well, but it's been a long time since I've look at my 2nd Ed stuff.
The "Blood Angel Dreadnought" certainly could have been the first mini release, even though the Woofs were the first Codex, and the Angels of Death Codex wouldn't come for a few years.
Altruizine wrote: And describing a theory as "Qanon brained" doesn't depend on a relation to American parties. But thank you for demonstrating your out-of-touchness with culture! I'm sure that isolation and ignorance will give people additional context for your posting.
You seem like a really nice person.
Anyhow, early GW model production for 2nd was very much a hit-or-miss affair, no question. I don't think they even had Marine models with multi-meltas, though they were in the codex lists.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Checked me books. I am going insane. No pics of the new Dreadnought anywhere in the boxed set.
I know the 2nd Ed book had a few Datafax cards. IIRC, it would have been Land Raider, Rhino, Dreadnought, Predator (?), Ork Dread and Battlewagon. I think the original Dread Datafax just had a quote where the picture should be, and the rest had artwork. Later on they had miniature pictures.
So there's a good chance we had rules for all the various Dread weapons, even if the specific minis weren't around yet. Then Dark Millennium hit and that had additional rules for Dread weaponry (like higher damage chart rolls for TL-Las, and reduced risk of jamming with the Assault Cannon, and so on). It might have had replacement Datafaxes with proper mini pics as well, but it's been a long time since I've look at my 2nd Ed stuff.
The "Blood Angel Dreadnought" certainly could have been the first mini release, even though the Woofs were the first Codex, and the Angels of Death Codex wouldn't come for a few years.
That may well be what I’m thinking of. I know the exact art that’s in my head as well.
Insectum7 wrote: Well you just spent a number of posts telling us how awesome Terminators were in 2nd edition. Each of those Terminators has sustained fire dice already. Wolf Guard are the same unit, except able to spam some of the best weapons in the game. Yeah, that was a dangerous unit.
Come now, I was contrasting them with what they later became, I wasn't claiming they were infallibly excellent.
Dreadnoughts were better Ballistic Skill, able to ignore the first Jam on the sustained fire dice, and unlike Wolf Guard didn't have to be deployed as one unit if you took multiple. Spamming Dreadnoughts might leave you with some jammed guns, but if the opposing army is already crippled and can't effectively retaliate, it hardly matters.
Sure, but tactics matter and so do whatever mission is in play. The greatest strength of 2nd was arguably the volume of firepower every army could employ (either from a distance or in person) that balanced out some of the spammy stuff.
The only thing I can think of that an Assault Cannon might struggle against is a Bunker (although I forget the AV of those) Even the most armored vehicles had weak points in tracks and sponsons. Even against heavier armor sections, striking 4-6 times with the Assault Cannon still gave you comparable or better chances than a single [or Twin] Lascannon. The Assault Cannon was excellent against infantry, monstrous creatures and vehicles. It covered all bases except possibly ultra spammy light infantry (which the other 1k of your army and those quad Heavy Bolter 'Noughts could balance for).
The cat has me pinned so I can't reach for my book, but IIRC a krak missile/assault cannon were 8+d10+d6 against armor (strength plus wounds plus d6). That meant it was ineffective against armor of 25 and had low penetration probability against anything over 20, so many tanks could at worst suffer track damage. The lascannon variant with its special targeting rule was a better choice against armor. Like the krak missile, flank shots were the way to go with those.
And yes, there were cheaty jerks in 2nd just like everywhere else, it just didn't seem as mainstream.
Anyhow, early GW model production for 2nd was very much a hit-or-miss affair, no question. I don't think they even had Marine models with multi-meltas, though they were in the codex lists.
There were the old RT Multimelta marines
Spoiler:
I don’t think there were any in the 2nd ed over the shoulder era. I think they next made their appearance in 3rd, but were restricted to Salamanders for a while, at least in tac squads. Not in the Dev box of hybrid metal/plastic, but eventually in blisters.
Getting a supply of MM troopers for my swap shelf took forever. When they re-cut the Dev box to be fully plastic, you only got one of them per box.
^Yah that's right. Limited to Salamanders for 3rd, after the'great culling'. But I do have at least four RT era beakies with Multimeltas!
The math will be hard to figure out, but for yuks I rolled out a twin Assault Cannon dred into a Land Raider. Oh I certainly jammed! But I also scored 9 hits on the LR (4+5 is pretty average), and the Land Raider didn't last past the 6th roll. (It lost half it's crew to fire and was immobilized before that).
Insectum7 wrote: Vehicles could still be exploded a-plenty through track and sponson damage.
I wouldn't call needing a six after a penetration "a-plenty," but I guess over time it adds up.
I'm am curious, did you personally use these assault cannon spam armies, or is this all theoretical?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yah that's right. Limited to Salamanders for 3rd, after the'great culling'. But I do have at least four RT era beakies with Multimeltas!
My housemate had a broken Tarantula with only one multimelta left, so he gave it to me and I made a 2nd ed. multi-melta Marine. I think that was the first weapon swap I ever did. I still have it, too.
I probably maxxed out at 4 Assault Cannons during 2nd, between Dreads, Terminators and a converted Land Speeder. For what it's worth I almost never took Lascannons because they were never needed. Assault Cannons plus Krak Missiles did well enough.
There were definitely range gaps, particularly Dreadnought Weapons. Left Arms were Powerfist and Missile Launcher. Right Arms were TL, AC and MM.
But there were options to double up on each, plus Plasma Cannon and Twin Heavy Bolters, which only ever featured for Chaos Dreadnoughts model wise. As those had a very distinct style difference, I always felt a straight forward transplant to an Imperial Dread looked a bit rubbish, so never bothered.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Powerfist remained hitty as it didn’t strike last, but the Dreadnought didn’t really have the attacks to fight its way clear of anything,
Don't forget the Dreadnaught vs Monster problem that I *THINK* was from this edition. They've all melded together a bit. I'm talking about where the Carnifex could open up a Dread like a can of tuna with a pull top because the Carnifex was a Monster, and the Walker was a Vehicle - but the Dread couldn't do anything special to the Carnifex because there wasn't a rule saving the Dread or weaking the Carnifex for what was an easy Rumble In The Jungle matchup.
Blood Angels (Multi Melta and Powerfist)
Bjorn the Fell Handed
Ultramarines (Assault Cannon and Powerfist)
Dark Angels (Lascannon and Missile Launcher)
Bjorn did come along fairly quickly - but had all sorts of iconography on the Assault Cannon.
Memory is sort of serving, Doc, just with a couple of inaccuracies.
- Assuming the SOL scan of the 93 catalogue is accurate, he was the first "walking washing machine" dread to be released - and while his CCW was wolfy, the Assault Cannon arm doesn't appear to be blinged up at all.
- The 1994 Annual doesn't feature any additional SM Dreadnoughts, and it is only in the 1995/6 one that the other three turn up
- You have got the correct combinations of arms for the three, though - I think I've got all bar Bjorn in my "to re-build and paint" pile, somewhere.
- I wonder why the UM Dread got an Assault Cannon as well, instead of introducing another option - this was in the days where you could Mail Order an arm if you wanted to mix & match, after all.
- I'm not 100% sure if Bjorn was released right at the end of Rogue Trader, with the likes of Ragnar, Ulrik & Njal, or whether he was an early 2nd ed release alongside the SM Codex - can anyone recall?
Doesn't matter? In fact, it's more evidence that they didn't and don't care what the most optimal weapon option is when they're cutting kits.
You're the one who posited a theory based on information that was factually incorrect - isn't a trait of conspiracy theorists that such facts get hand-waved away, like you're doing here? Maybe you shouldn't claim someone else is following such a theory when you exhibit the same thought patterns yourself...
See I swear the Blood Angels one was the first I ever saw. And I got into 2nd Ed more or less day one, to the point I nearly got in for the tail end of Rogue Trader, but they’d stopped selling it.
Then again. The day we bought the boxed set, we also bought a Leman Russ - but I’d definitely seen the Blood Angels Dread before then, and had been well impressed.
Odd I’m struggling with dates. Found out RT was OOP in Brighton. Saw the BA Dread in Edinburgh, bought 40K in Maidstone. That I am 100% on!
This is no different than making the Forgeworld variants better than the standard off-the-shelf stuff.
Except in that case they would be making better the stuff that gives lower profit.
There's reason why GW keeps making FW units unplayable. Lower profit rate than plastic. GW wants tournament try hards to buy plastic as it gives better profit.
Breton wrote: Don't forget the Dreadnaught vs Monster problem that I *THINK* was from this edition. They've all melded together a bit. I'm talking about where the Carnifex could open up a Dread like a can of tuna with a pull top because the Carnifex was a Monster, and the Walker was a Vehicle - but the Dread couldn't do anything special to the Carnifex because there wasn't a rule saving the Dread or weaking the Carnifex for what was an easy Rumble In The Jungle matchup.
It was the change from 2nd ed to 3rd ed that really started the problem. in 2E a carnifex could open a dread like a tin can. they would get at least S7 hits in CC, but you could add biomorphs to them (Sharpened claws, Voltage fields) to boost them to S10. This would give them, 10 + D6 + D20 for penetrating armour, against a dreads AV of 19-21 depending on where it was hit.
Most CC weapons did 1 damage in 2E same as in third, but the big difference was that in 2E close combat was an opposed roll (it was a succession of 1v1's, you would roll a number of d6 equal to your attacks, taking the highest. each addition 6 was +1, each 1 was -1. then add this to your WS, each side did this, and then compared, the difference was the number of hits that were scored), rather than each party getting their full attacks regardless. so a dread that won a CC by a fair margin could pull all the arms and legs off a carnifex, and a Carnifex could do the same to a dreadnought.
The carnifex still had an advantage though, since it could take out the dread in 1 hit, whereas the dread would need multiple hits to kill the carnifex.
As soon as you changed the rules to allow both sides to get their full attacks (if they survived) then a dread would strip 1-2 wounds from a carnifex, and then get smashed since the Carnifex was an MC, and got 2d6 for armour penetration of vehicles rather than 1d6 in CC. It was probably the whole 2d6 thing rather than everyone getting to attack if they were alive that really did in Dreads in 3rd to 7th ed.
As someone disgruntled thoroughly by Dreadnoughts against Monsters?
A single hit had a chance of taking your Dread out of the game. And as it suffered damage, you lost weapons or mobility. Pop my legs off? Im buggered, especially if it’s a HTH build, as there’s nothing it can do.
Carnifex and Wraithlords? No such degradation. Until you dropped it, it kept fighting at full efficiency. And with no multiple wound strikes, that took time or a serious concentration of firepower. And the points costs never reflected that at all.
In 2nd Ed? Sure Carnifex were tough. But when I wounded, I could at least strip multiple wounds at a time.
The balance that was at least attempted, was that MCs were more predictably worn down through wounds (in the early editions before creep settled in) and small arms could also plink away at them in many cases.
T8 was very rare in those days, and anything T7 or below could be wounded with S4, whereas even a Rhino was immune to S4 unless you got around it to the rear.
Later editions really broke it though. When you had MCs with lots of wounds, high toughness and big invuln saves on top of it, a Lascannon being limited to only doing a single point of damage sucked.
The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
^That's still pretty much every edition though. I just started meeting people to try 9th ed again and they all asked "how hard do you want to go?" More or less.
The answer is "Try to wipe me from the board." Btw.
Insectum7 wrote: ^That's still pretty much every edition though. I just started meeting people to try 9th ed again and they all asked "how hard do you want to go?" More or less.
The answer is "Try to wipe me from the board." Btw.
Which is a completely legit answer. But it’s an important conversation to have. And always has been.
40k is a great game when people come to the table with the same expectations. But the balance is so scattershot, you can’t make assumptions.
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
The purpose of the game is to beat your opponent...
Sorta. The big rule books also provided many scenario missions and rules for assymetric affairs. GW provided lots of options for alternate lists like R&H, Tank Companies, all-Kroot armies and Vehicle Design Rules, with varying levels of 'competetiveness'. 40k is a game which CAN be played competetively, but also narratively. Yes you 'play to win', but not always in the sense that two rough-equivalent armies are facing off over a "tourney standard" table/mission. I'd argue 40k at its best is NOT designed for 100% tourney-style balance.
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
The purpose of the game is to beat your opponent...
Lets switch to HH 2.0 for just a second. Player A brings a TAC list and Player B brings a "March of the Ancients" list. We all know that Player A won´t have a good time.
This "beating your opponent mindset" is feasible for a tournament but not a game among friends. Although who knows maybe you have so many friends that losing a few won´t make such a difference.
JNAProductions wrote: That’s a sign that balance is bad.
That’s not a sign that playing to the best of your ability is bad.
Balance?! LOL! We are taking about 40K. Players are advised to have self-restraint when playing this game. The moment you behave like an immature Mr. WAAC you will run out of opponents pretty quickly.
I think you need to define balance. Are we doing the "any 2k list should be competetive with any other 2k list" thing? Because I would argue AGAINST aiming for that ideal of balance.
Sorta. The big rule books also provided many scenario missions and rules for assymetric affairs. GW provided lots of options for alternate lists like R&H, Tank Companies, all-Kroot armies and Vehicle Design Rules, with varying levels of 'competetiveness'. 40k is a game which CAN be played competetively, but also narratively. Yes you 'play to win', but not always in the sense that two rough-equivalent armies are facing off over a "tourney standard" table/mission. I'd argue 40k at its best is NOT designed for 100% tourney-style balance.
I forgot that 3rd had asymmetrical force org charts for some battles. Like the attacker would have more FA picks, and the defender more HS. Been a while since I looked at them. We were not at the “2 players bring fixed lists” point of pure bilateral balance yet. Was there any of that left in 4th? I think most people would agree that by 5th at the very least we’d tightened up into a wargame from the loose “we recommend having an impartial Game Master” days of RT.
Feels off topic but whatever. The entire concept of a user regulated game is critical for many hobbies such as D&D, Airsoft, and of course Warhammer. People play these game for many different reasons and not everyone is trying to go full throttle, min max to the extreme, no holds barred, hit me as hard as you can, levels of play. In all three of these examples, the imagery of what is happening and the interactions that take place are just as important if not more than being the winner. In the case of Warhammer, a good chunk of players don't like just seal clubbing somebody and also generally dislike being on the receiving end the seal clubber 9000. A fairly even matchup is vastly more enjoyable to play and allows you to express the creativity of your army on the table top.
I loved picking a theme and then min maxing an army that can do the things that I wanted to experience on the table room. My Blitz-a-waaagh list for example was basically everything in an AV14 hull + having dakkajets + some Flash Gitz in the mix so I tuned it to get the most out of that list idea to make it as viable as I could without sacrificing what I wanted to have on the table. Was this able to take on the top tier armies in tournaments? Absolutely not but was it a fair match up for little Timmy's first army or somebody playing a fluffy Space Marine list? Not even close. But finding somebody running something at a roughly similar power level (not referring to GW's system) made for great games.
I think you need to define balance. Are we doing the "any 2k list should be competetive with any other 2k list" thing? Because I would argue AGAINST aiming for that ideal of balance.
Any competently built list, where competence is defined as someone who’s at a minimum thoroughly read and understands the rules, should have equal odds of beating another competently built list. A well-optimized list can have an advantage, but it shouldn’t be more than 20% in favor of a cutthroat list compared to a basic one. Every option should be worth taking, though not in all contexts.
I think you need to define balance. Are we doing the "any 2k list should be competetive with any other 2k list" thing? Because I would argue AGAINST aiming for that ideal of balance.
Any competently built list, where competence is defined as someone who’s at a minimum thoroughly read and understands the rules, should have equal odds of beating another competently built list.
A well-optimized list can have an advantage, but it shouldn’t be more than 20% in favor of a cutthroat list compared to a basic one.
Every option should be worth taking, though not in all contexts.
That's pretty good, although 'contexts' is a doozy. Because terrain should matter a heck of a lot, and that in turn should have a huge impact on the percieved viabilities of any given unit.
But I'd also leave the space open for 40k to not aim to be a strictly competetive endeavor too. I'm very happy to have less-than-competetively-viable units, and even lists, for the sake of world building.
And back to the original point: If you leave design space for these alternate builds and units to exist in the game because it enriches the universe and promotes engagement in a less-than-strictly-competetive way, then the paradigm begins to require that players coordinate ahead of time about what sort of game they want to play. Do they want to try their wierd and fluffy build in a casual game? Or do they want to go cut-throat?
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
The purpose of the game is to beat your opponent...
Lets switch to HH 2.0 for just a second. Player A brings a TAC list and Player B brings a "March of the Ancients" list. We all know that Player A won´t have a good time.
This "beating your opponent mindset" is feasible for a tournament but not a game among friends. Although who knows maybe you have so many friends that losing a few won´t make such a difference.
1. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to do March of the Ancients? Dreads are cool.
2. If Dreads are a problem, why shouldn't the rules writers tone them down?
I'm starting to believe they can't. This much failure after this length of time tells me not only that they can't improve, but that they don't want to.
I dont think 2nd edition was supposed to be balanced. Certainly not to the level Gamers on the internet demand nowadays anyway.
It had so much optional bolt on stuff and permission to do your own thing im not sure how theyd even start doing so to be honest.
Of course players who did want a balanced competitive type game it could be houseruled but that is really not what the company was going for so i dont think one can attack them for not achieving it
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
The purpose of the game is to beat your opponent...
No, not at all.
The purpose of the game is to provide a framework for two (or more) players to have fun. I appreciate that this can be forgotten by the more cutthroat tournament types.
The objective for an individual playing a specific game may be to win, but even then, that may not be as simple as "get the most victory points" or "kill the most models" - as have been pointed out, asymmetric missions have existed in a number of editions, where a "win" may be as simple as "survive until turn 5" because you're the defender in a holding action.
Strg Alt wrote: The culprit in 2nd in regards to lethality were not the wonderful weapon profiles but rather min-maxing players intent to cram in as many heavy weapons into the list as possible. This made an enjoyable game often hard, if not even impossible. So have a talk with your opponent to tone it down next time you play it.
If you need ro talk to your opponent what what they're allowed to bring, the game was a failure in design to begin with.
100% disagree.
It all depends on the purpose of the game to begin with.
The purpose of the game is to beat your opponent...
No, not at all.
The purpose of the game is to provide a framework for two (or more) players to have fun. I appreciate that this can be forgotten by the more cutthroat tournament types.
"Have fun" is literally why any game is made to begin with. Your answer is weak and quite frankly I stopped reading after this.
Dai wrote: Of course players who did want a balanced competitive type game it could be houseruled but that is really not what the company was going for so i dont think one can attack them for not achieving it
They've been doing this for over 30 years. They absolutely can be attacked for consistently screwing it up.
Dai wrote: Of course players who did want a balanced competitive type game it could be houseruled but that is really not what the company was going for so i dont think one can attack them for not achieving it
They've been doing this for over 30 years. They absolutely can be attacked for consistently screwing it up.
To be fair to Dai, they were referring specifically to 2nd edition, which was 30 years ago...
madtankbloke wrote: It was the change from 2nd ed to 3rd ed that really started the problem. in 2E a carnifex could open a dread like a tin can. they would get at least S7 hits in CC, but you could add biomorphs to them (Sharpened claws, Voltage fields) to boost them to S10. This would give them, 10 + D6 + D20 for penetrating armour, against a dreads AV of 19-21 depending on where it was hit.
Most CC weapons did 1 damage in 2E same as in third, but the big difference was that in 2E close combat was an opposed roll (it was a succession of 1v1's, you would roll a number of d6 equal to your attacks, taking the highest. each addition 6 was +1, each 1 was -1. then add this to your WS, each side did this, and then compared, the difference was the number of hits that were scored), rather than each party getting their full attacks regardless. so a dread that won a CC by a fair margin could pull all the arms and legs off a carnifex, and a Carnifex could do the same to a dreadnought.
The carnifex still had an advantage though, since it could take out the dread in 1 hit, whereas the dread would need multiple hits to kill the carnifex.
Yes, the only close combat weapons that did multiple wounds per hit were...wait for it...thunder hammers (d6) and chainfists (d4).
Dreadnoughts and Carnifexes were both WS 6, but the Carnifex got an extra attack die and - if it won - could simply rip the legs off the dreadnought and count it as a win.
I supposed one could try to even the odds by doing dual power-fists or something, but that was a waste of the dreadnought's potential.
Still, against lots of troops, dreadnoughts were effective in close combat. After 2nd, they were useless and best used as up-armored Sentinels.
Insectum7 wrote: I probably maxxed out at 4 Assault Cannons during 2nd, between Dreads, Terminators and a converted Land Speeder. For what it's worth I almost never took Lascannons because they were never needed. Assault Cannons plus Krak Missiles did well enough.
One of my main opponents was a tank driver and gunner, and so he favored lots of IG armor and pretty suave tactics. I needed first-hit penetrations on frontal armor to stand a chance, hence the multi-melta marine.
Insectum7 wrote: I probably maxxed out at 4 Assault Cannons during 2nd, between Dreads, Terminators and a converted Land Speeder. For what it's worth I almost never took Lascannons because they were never needed. Assault Cannons plus Krak Missiles did well enough.
One of my main opponents was a tank driver and gunner, and so he favored lots of IG armor and pretty suave tactics. I needed first-hit penetrations on frontal armor to stand a chance, hence the multi-melta marine.
Seems like prime use cases for Land Speeders and Attack Bikes rocking MMs to me.
The Attack Bike was one of my favorite tools, tbh. It got the Multimelta, but later in 2nd edition it got the Heavy Bolter option, which could then be upgraded to a Heavy Flamer using a vehicle card. The ability to accelerate to 25"ish or whatever it was, and deliver a Heavy Flamer into a target on turn 1 was very nasty. At S5 -3, it was like an Assault Cannon that couldn't jam against Infantry, and it set many things on fire. Warpheads, Exarchs, whatever.
A couple unique cards were also released for it making it downright cheaty. It was something like a comms array and some other device, that allowed for an increase in Strategy rating for going first, as well as a reroll to the go-first roll. Using that in conjunction with either a custom Chapter Master or a named one like Calgar meant you could start the game with a Strategy Rating of 7 and had a reroll (or 2 dice pick the highest, I forget). It was stupid potent.
Dai wrote: Of course players who did want a balanced competitive type game it could be houseruled but that is really not what the company was going for so i dont think one can attack them for not achieving it
They've been doing this for over 30 years. They absolutely can be attacked for consistently screwing it up.
To be fair to Dai, they were referring specifically to 2nd edition, which was 30 years ago...
You snipped that context out of the quote though.
Indeed I was. Modern GW have explicitly stated they are chasing that balance and are releasing modern esport rulesets as such they have no comparable excuse.
Insectum7 wrote: Seems like prime use cases for Land Speeders and Attack Bikes rocking MMs to me.
My budget at the time was very limited, so I went with the MM marine and lascannon, which if you crunch the numbers, had a much higher expected value of armor penetration than krak/assault cannon.
I never really liked bikes or landspeeders, and in fact the only reason I have two landspeeders is because the came in the 3rd ed. boxed set. One I bought, the other was traded for something or other. (Lots of trading going on when new boxed sets came out.)
Anyway, when I returned to 2nd ed., I retrofitted both speeders to the meltagun/flamer standard.
Getting back to the topic, I think it's clear that both the thunder hammer and chainfist by virtue of their bonus wound capabilities stood above what they later became.
As was the case with the platforms that mounted them.
I will note that since returning to 2nd ed., I was pleased to find that my 3rd ed. optimized weapon loadouts are still viable and an interesting change of pace.
Now if we want to talk about dreadnoughts fighting tyranids, the power scourge has a few things to say on its own behalf.
Crunching the numbers, a Lascannon averages 2.5 points higher in AP than an Assault Cannon. 9+(3.5x3)=19.5. Vs. 8+5.5+3.5=17. But then the Assault Cannon also averages 4.5 hits at a time, so you get to roll a bunch more. The AC is not only comparable, but in some ways better, for often rolling more damage results across multiple systems.
The Multimelta is a specialized can opener, since the Blast allows it to hit multiple times, and the average roll is 8+(2x6.5)+3.5=24.5! The only issue was the range. But being just one shot, it was less reliable against things like monstrous creatures, which just might roll a single invuln save and shrug it off, while the Assault Cannon forces several saves, and each failure gives D10 wounds.
I dunno if it was just my experience, my lack of tactical subtlety or what, but I don’t really remember there being much in the way of Hard Counters in 2nd Ed? At least not in the ‘well I’ll just pack my list with as much AP2/AP3’ 3rd Ed onward way?
I suspect it being pre-internet and a pretty limited gaming circle, it’s just a very limited perspective making it seem that way though.
I suppose I should’ve said I don’t recall hard counter lists. Hard Counter Units absolutely existed. Howling Banshees were well placed to slaughter Terminators. Sure their Powersword Save Modifier wasn’t enough to guarantee failed saves, but their higher movement, and effect of their Masks typically meant you had a comfortable weight of hits to wipe out a unit. Provided I took care to shield them from incoming firepower of course!
I dunno if it was just my experience, my lack of tactical subtlety or what, but I don’t really remember there being much in the way of Hard Counters in 2nd Ed? At least not in the ‘well I’ll just pack my list with as much AP2/AP3’ 3rd Ed onward way?
I suspect it being pre-internet and a pretty limited gaming circle, it’s just a very limited perspective making it seem that way though.
There were some. 2nd was to some extent Hero Hammer - the main/special characters were beefy. But they were swampable. Each subsequent model on your side got +1S and +1A as I recall, you sent 30 grots against Abby and just waited until you got to the one that ended up being S10 10A so that Abby/etc couldn't ginsu the elite units 5 at a time. UM got to break that paradigm with Calgar because his Gauntlets that edition negated that buff to followon attackers.
In a similar fashion you had Psychology as a full facet of the game then, so your 30 grots had to work up the courage to get into combat with a terror causing Abby/Dante etc.
I suppose none of them are really HARD counters, but they were pretty close to what you're talking about I think?
+1 WS and +1 A when swamping. Unless you were swamping an Eversor, as they got the benefit instead and became frankly monstrous!
Yeah Herohammer was definitely a thing, but I still feel the basic mechanics were about right. If both players exercised character related restraint you’d get a really decent game in.
I think. Again I’m not gonna pretend the Rose Tinteds are strong here!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: +1 WS and +1 A when swamping. Unless you were swamping an Eversor, as they got the benefit instead and became frankly monstrous!
Yeah Herohammer was definitely a thing, but I still feel the basic mechanics were about right. If both players exercised character related restraint you’d get a really decent game in.
I think. Again I’m not gonna pretend the Rose Tinteds are strong here!
Oh yeah, there are several things I miss from back then, and several things I don't want to see come back ever. Skill Contested rolls, WS vs WS? Absolutely. Even dive into it - BS vs Initiative. Individually scattering all 10 Assault Marines after a combat jump one at a time? No thank you. We just did one roll and said they all caught the same wind current. Psychology new and improved? Yes Please. 5 Units and about 32 bodies in 2,000 points? Nah.
I suppose I should’ve said I don’t recall hard counter lists.
Oh they totally existed. The Super Wolf Guard Squad, the 100 Hormagaunts, the Pulsa Rokkit Barrage, the 40 discs of Tzeentch one I fielded. Super min-maxed lists were abundant in the right (or wrong) circles. Assault Cannon spam being a total possibility here, too.
The real strength of 2nd though was the vast array of mechanics that existed. Overwatch, firing out of transports, hit-and-run attacks on bikes, various grenade effects like Photon Flash or Blind or Plasma, or just the power of level 4 psykers.
There were a lot of tools in the toolkit, and so putting all your eggs into one tactical basket could leave you without the options to counter non-standard tactics.
But if you weren't up on how to start dealing with some of those lists, you could be in for an unpleasant stomping.
Insectum7 wrote: Crunching the numbers, a Lascannon averages 2.5 points higher in AP than an Assault Cannon. 9+(3.5x3)=19.5. Vs. 8+5.5+3.5=17. But then the Assault Cannon also averages 4.5 hits at a time, so you get to roll a bunch more. The AC is not only comparable, but in some ways better, for often rolling more damage results across multiple systems.
The maximum possible roll for the AC is still insufficient to penetrate the front of a Leman Russ turret, so even if you hit,1/3 of your shots automatically fail to do anything. If you hit the hull front, you need to score a 22 to do anything, which carries a 90% chance of failure. Sustained fire dice famously cause jams, so while you can score a lot of hits one turn, you can expect to spend the next clearing a jam.
Dreadnought-mounted weapons ignore the first jam, but if I'm going against heavy tanks, I'd rather have a twin-linked lascannon with the special ability to adjust aim on my shot.
Taken as a whole, AC were wonderful weapons, no question and a welcome addition to any army. My critique is simply informed by the fact that one of my regular opponents was an actual tread head who liked to field armored platoons. For that reason I also scratch-built a Rapier Laser Destroyer.
The Multimelta is a specialized can opener, since the Blast allows it to hit multiple times, and the average roll is 8+(2x6.5)+3.5=24.5! The only issue was the range. But being just one shot, it was less reliable against things like monstrous creatures, which just might roll a single invuln save and shrug it off, while the Assault Cannon forces several saves, and each failure gives D10 wounds.
An incredible weapon.
Absolutely, and what was fun was that the options complimented each other nicely. There was no "obvious choice." Assault cannon were limited options that had excellent performance most of the time but also benefited from having some additional variety in the arsenal.
As to imbalance, I found that 2nd ed. games were much more balanced and interesting than those that came after and certainly better than WFHB 5th ed. Such was the lethality of the weaponry that it was possible to take a solid "all comers" list. Heavy bolters, for example, were quite useful against power armored troops. Later on GW began to sort weapons into individual niches, which made weapons selection more important that their employment.
Hero Hammer is a bit misleading to readers who never played it. Characters from SM & Eldar were able to rapidly engage in melee but were mounted on 25 mm bases which weren´t able to touch a lot of opposing models as HtH rules only allowed combat between models who were in btb contact. The assault cannon got a lot of recognition although every heavy weapon was dangerous. For example the humble heavy bolter caused D4 wounds and in combination with the Overwatch & Hide rules meant that they could threaten a wide section of the field especially when fielded in Devastator/CSM squads. And the heavy flamer with the Burning rule was the bane of all clumped up models which made the Landspeeder with it´s outstanding mobility one of the very best units in the game.
Should your opponent had the habit of using often mobile characters with a strong force field then using a vortex grenade to counter them was the right option. You needed only a hit and to wholly envelop the model in the template in order to remove it from the board.
Strg Alt wrote: Hero Hammer is a bit misleading to readers who never played it. Characters from SM & Eldar were able to rapidly engage in melee but were mounted on 25 mm bases which weren´t able to touch a lot of opposing models as HtH rules only allowed combat between models who were in btb contact. The assault cannon got a lot of recognition although every heavy weapon was dangerous. For example the humble heavy bolter caused D4 wounds and in combination with the Overwatch & Hide rules meant that they could threaten a wide section of the field especially when fielded in Devastator/CSM squads. And the heavy flamer with the Burning rule was the bane of all clumped up models which made the Landspeeder with it´s outstanding mobility one of the very best units in the game.
Should your opponent had the habit of using often mobile characters with a strong force field then using a vortex grenade to counter them was the right option. You needed only a hit and to wholly envelop the model in the template in order to remove it from the board.
When all else fails, use the vortex grenade.
You could also voluntarily break during close combat and models not in base to base contact didn't suffer any pursuit attacks, though they remained "broken." Failing that, you could fire into a melee, so close combat monsters were far from invulnerable. Indeed, a key tactic was to ensure your units covered each other for precisely that reason.
I found the characters in 40k very reasonable compared with their Fantasy counterparts. Probably the biggest reason I still play 2nd is that the tactics are actually pretty realistic. Given overall weapon lethality, you can't really count on a super-character to win the day for you just by showing up.
Insectum7 wrote: Crunching the numbers, a Lascannon averages 2.5 points higher in AP than an Assault Cannon. 9+(3.5x3)=19.5. Vs. 8+5.5+3.5=17. But then the Assault Cannon also averages 4.5 hits at a time, so you get to roll a bunch more. The AC is not only comparable, but in some ways better, for often rolling more damage results across multiple systems.
The maximum possible roll for the AC is still insufficient to penetrate the front of a Leman Russ turret, so even if you hit,1/3 of your shots automatically fail to do anything. If you hit the hull front, you need to score a 22 to do anything, which carries a 90% chance of failure. Sustained fire dice famously cause jams, so while you can score a lot of hits one turn, you can expect to spend the next clearing a jam.
Dreadnought-mounted weapons ignore the first jam, but if I'm going against heavy tanks, I'd rather have a twin-linked lascannon with the special ability to adjust aim on my shot.
Taken as a whole, AC were wonderful weapons, no question and a welcome addition to any army. My critique is simply informed by the fact that one of my regular opponents was an actual tread head who liked to field armored platoons. For that reason I also scratch-built a Rapier Laser Destroyer.
The Multimelta is a specialized can opener, since the Blast allows it to hit multiple times, and the average roll is 8+(2x6.5)+3.5=24.5! The only issue was the range. But being just one shot, it was less reliable against things like monstrous creatures, which just might roll a single invuln save and shrug it off, while the Assault Cannon forces several saves, and each failure gives D10 wounds.
An incredible weapon.
Absolutely, and what was fun was that the options complimented each other nicely. There was no "obvious choice." Assault cannon were limited options that had excellent performance most of the time but also benefited from having some additional variety in the arsenal.
As to imbalance, I found that 2nd ed. games were much more balanced and interesting than those that came after and certainly better than WFHB 5th ed. Such was the lethality of the weaponry that it was possible to take a solid "all comers" list. Heavy bolters, for example, were quite useful against power armored troops. Later on GW began to sort weapons into individual niches, which made weapons selection more important that their employment.
We're gonna have to agree to dissagree I'm afraid. To me the Assault Cannon was the obvious choice because, unlike Twin Las for example, it was good against every target. Infantry, Monsters, Tanks, Bikes, Terminators, etc. were all targets of high return, which made it especially useful for folks like me who used the same list against multiple foes in clubs or tournaments. Twin Lascannons are great against Tanks and MCs, but if I came up against the 100 Hormagaunt list, limited value. It's why the other heavy weapon choice for me was the Missile Launcher for its variable ammunition. One weapon, many uses.
Drinking my coffee reading this exchange I’m flashing back to “what’s the best gun" discussions from assorted editions. Once they added hull points, the favorite shifted hard toward mid-S multiple/high RoF guns, with rapid fire plasma and autocannons being king. Which worked real well vs anything that wasn’t an AV14 brick, like land raiders or monoliths. What about those? “Nobody uses them, they suck” Which from a point efficiency PoV had some truth to it. But doesn’t help when you regularly face a wall of steel against your regular foes
It’s why when giving list building advice in the days of AV, I always suggested that people think about how they are going to deal with heavy armor. Plasma spam, much like the AsC of 2nd edition, makes a LOT of problems just go away. But sometimes you want/need the specialized tool for the job. Especially against skew lists.
Nevelon wrote: Drinking my coffee reading this exchange I’m flashing back to “what’s the best gun" discussions from assorted editions. Once they added hull points, the favorite shifted hard toward mid-S multiple/high RoF guns, with rapid fire plasma and autocannons being king. Which worked real well vs anything that wasn’t an AV14 brick, like land raiders or monoliths. What about those? “Nobody uses them, they suck” Which from a point efficiency PoV had some truth to it. But doesn’t help when you regularly face a wall of steel against your regular foes
It’s why when giving list building advice in the days of AV, I always suggested that people think about how they are going to deal with heavy armor. Plasma spam, much like the AsC of 2nd edition, makes a LOT of problems just go away. But sometimes you want/need the specialized tool for the job. Especially against skew lists.
Yeah, that's basically the case with me. Like many (most?) players, my first army was built around the boxed set and I traded with a friend who bought one at the same time. He got a decent ork army, I got four squads of Marines - an excellent foundation and a superb value. After that I continued to build up my forces, and I quickly learned of the excellence of the Assault Cannon.
For pickup games against random players it was an excellent choice, but as the gaming group developed, so did game play. And yes, there were people who favored a specific type of list even against "all comers." My treadhead friend showed me that when the AC is outclassed, really bad things can happen. If you play a shooty army (as I did and still do), you can't improvise a close assault to deal with tanks that are largely invulnerable to anti-armor weapons. At the time I did not have a lot of vehicles, so my Marines would have had to make assault on foot, which was suicidal.
Hence the multi-melta and lascannon and even full-power plasma (for the template effect). Hit probability with 2nd ed. Marines wasn't the problem, it was armor penetration.
Insectum7 wrote: Twin Lascannons are great against Tanks and MCs, but if I came up against the 100 Hormagaunt list, limited value. It's why the other heavy weapon choice for me was the Missile Launcher for its variable ammunition. One weapon, many uses.
At the time Hormaguants were metal only, and while people talked of such a thing, I never saw it, so it was not something that even crossed my mind.
Against massed infantry (Termagants backed by Genestealers or ork mobs) I found that Rapid Fire bolters were generally sufficient. Indeed, one of the (many) strengths of that edition was that small arms mattered. They weren't just things you had to take because the rules wouldn't allow every Marine squad to use pistol and sword, nor were they merely meat shields for your heavies or bosses.
Somewhat germane, last night I was soundly thumped by the Eldar during a meeting engagement. My Chaos Marines had a predator with twin-linked lascannon, but otherwise missile launchers were quite sufficient to one-shot the dreadnought (hit to the leg, natch). The decisive points were my failure to swing the predator away from the Falcon it had badly damaged (turret weapons work only on a 4+) and engage that dreadnought before it wrecked two other Rhinos loaded with troops. The second decisive point was the third Rhino - with the missile launchers - being teleported by a D-cannon result directly into the path of his Vyper/Jet bike onslaught on the far side of the board. The guy who took out the dread was the sole survivor of the wreck and the subsequent shuriken shower. He got his shot off, did a fist pump, and died. On 2nd, I love you, but you drive me nuts.
Hence the multi-melta and lascannon and even full-power plasma (for the template effect). Hit probability with 2nd ed. Marines wasn't the problem, it was armor penetration.
Armor Pen vs AV14 was a problem for nearly everyone (though that was more in 3rd and beyond when they got rid of the non D6 rolls - in second things were pretty wild with 8+D6+D20 etc). It was one of the most painful issues when vehicles switched to wounds. All of a sudden a Land Raider that could only be "wounded" on 6's by only a handful of guns was getting popped by a bunch of guns wounding on 4's. But 2nd Edition was pretty formative. That's when I started the One Of Everything TAC list, and I still do it today. Of course, way back then you couldn't really take 3 of the same squad anyway because you were usually limited to three squads in 2000 points.
The AV and AP system of 3rd-7th never sat right with me.
Pretty much any choice between AP4 and AP3? You went with AP3. And you’d typically field a Lascannon over a Missile Launcher, because otherwise you could only plink away at AV14. But get that extra point of S in play, and not only could you now penetrate and wreck it in a single shot, but you still doubled your chance of doing anything at all.
This lead to fairly cookie cutter lists emerging, and as a result games feeling a bit samey.
Let’s consider the Heavy Bolter. In 3rd-7th, if memory serves….36” Range, S5, AP4, Heavy 3.
In 2nd Ed? 36” Range (would need to check), S5, Dam D4, AP -2, 2 Sustained Fire Dice.
Now against all but the lightest of vehicles both profiles were a bit crap for anti-armour. But in 2nd Ed, it was a pretty efficient piece of kit for knocking holes in most infantry and middle sized gribblies (like Tyranid Warriors). It can even take down characters from a single failed save, thanks to D4 Damage.
In the dark times? What. A. Wretched. Gun. Didn’t really bother MEQ. It lacked the rate of fire to really bother Horde Units (Boyz and Bugs). It was pretty useful against certain Aspect Squads though, as they typically came in small enough squads to offset that drawback.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In the dark times? What. A. Wretched. Gun. Didn’t really bother MEQ. It lacked the rate of fire to really bother Horde Units (Boyz and Bugs). It was pretty useful against certain Aspect Squads though, as they typically came in small enough squads to offset that drawback.
I think the heavy bolter in 3rd had a place against hordes because they were so cheap.
That being said, low AP was the way to go.
A further offense of 3rd edition was the stupid Ordnance rules, which made tanks into pillboxes and created bizarre sponson-less Leman Russ variants because if you moved at all, only one weapon could fire.
I think the heavy bolter in 3rd had a place against hordes because they were so cheap.
It also depended on where that place was. HB's went in my Tac Squads but not my Dev Squads.
That being said, low AP was the way to go.
That and it was just so jarring. They were hard plateaus with sheer drop offs - AP4 is much more brutal vs covered stat bands, but it then plinks off others when compared to AP -2 (and more so vs AP -1 and Dev Doctrine)
A further offense of 3rd edition was the stupid Ordnance rules, which made tanks into pillboxes and created bizarre sponson-less Leman Russ variants because if you moved at all, only one weapon could fire.
That edition drove me out of 40k.
I thought that had potential, but it needed a couple editions on the drawing board. Primary and Secondary Weapons wasn't a horrible idea. It wasn't a great one, but it had potential. They should have spent more time refining it because all of the tanks at that point hadn't been designed with it in mind. The original Land Raider was backwards for that rule. The "Turret" was a TLHB, while the "Secondary" Sponsons were TLLC. The Leman Russ with a Hull This and a Turret That also had issues. The rule just wasn't built with an eye towards the supply.
Old AP and cover, while it might not feel as intuitive as new AP, produced more thematic results.
AP4 and worse weapons (so most small arms fire) bounced off Marine armor 2/3rds of the time, and cover didn't help them. So against light weapons, MEQ had little fear, but Guardsmen and other lightly-armored models had to hug cover to survive.
Enter 8th edition. Marines double their survivability against AP0 small arms fire, while Guardsmen only see a 33% boost. So Marines hug cover against Lasguns, while Guard charge against Bolters.
Some elements feel reasonable in 8th onwards-like Melta being so powerful that it would roast you even through cover. But overall, the results of the 3rd-7th AP and cover system felt better.
JNAProductions wrote: Old AP and cover, while it might not feel as intuitive as new AP, produced more thematic results.
AP4 and worse weapons (so most small arms fire) bounced off Marine armor 2/3rds of the time, and cover didn't help them. So against light weapons, MEQ had little fear, but Guardsmen and other lightly-armored models had to hug cover to survive.
Enter 8th edition. Marines double their survivability against AP0 small arms fire, while Guardsmen only see a 33% boost. So Marines hug cover against Lasguns, while Guard charge against Bolters.
That's one of the things I didn't like. Marines died at basically the same rate to lasguns and bolter fire. I'm not saying bolters should scythe through Marines like wheat, but there should be a different calculus as the weapons get stronger but not automatic.
Some elements feel reasonable in 8th onwards-like Melta being so powerful that it would roast you even through cover. But overall, the results of the 3rd-7th AP and cover system felt better.
Some elements feel reasonable in 8th onwards-like Melta being so powerful that it would roast you even through cover. But overall, the results of the 3rd-7th AP and cover system felt better.
Rose tinted glasses always appear when it comes to the old AP system, where an Autocannon had more a chance to kill a Rhino in one shot and simply bounce off a Marine.
Lascannon would cut through power armour nicely. But Leaves baffled it 1/3rd of the time.
Yes I know it was an abstraction, representing the firing model losing LoS and the shot opportunity. But hey, BS modifiers did that too - and in “the right order”
And in terms of efficiency? Perhaps I genuinely have a novel (stupid) thought process. But why would I want a Heavy Bolter in my 3rd-7th Ed Tacticals? Sure it’s cheap, but the rest of the squad’s Bolters are handy enough for slaying chaffe infantry. I’d rather pack a Missile Launcher or Lascannon as a “just in case” item of dissuasion, or go without.
Though credit where credit is due, at least 3rd-7th solved the Transports Are Just A Mobile Coffin problem of 2nd Ed!
And in terms of efficiency? Perhaps I genuinely have a novel (stupid) thought process. But why would I want a Heavy Bolter in my 3rd-7th Ed Tacticals? Sure it’s cheap, but the rest of the squad’s Bolters are handy enough for slaying chaffe infantry. I’d rather pack a Missile Launcher or Lascannon as a “just in case” item of dissuasion, or go without.
Its a matter of flavor and personal taste. It could also have been Chapter rules like Imperial Fists and Heavy Bolter boosts. I went with HB in the Tacs because I went with Not Heavy Bolters in the Devs. That's a lot of editions with a lot of rulesets but it was often either split fire or move and (or And/or) fire based - I was more willing to take a "penalty" (that could be as simple as not having a cherub, or the Sergeant's targetting auspex thing I can't remember the name of) on a cheap HB in the Tac Squad, and let more stationary and specialized "anti-tank" fire come from the Devs. Or one could have wanted to mix the non-HB weapons throughout to prevent an eggs in one basket thing. Novel thought processes aren't bad.
Nevelon wrote: Drinking my coffee reading this exchange I’m flashing back to “what’s the best gun" discussions from assorted editions. Once they added hull points, the favorite shifted hard toward mid-S multiple/high RoF guns, with rapid fire plasma and autocannons being king. Which worked real well vs anything that wasn’t an AV14 brick, like land raiders or monoliths. What about those? “Nobody uses them, they suck” Which from a point efficiency PoV had some truth to it. But doesn’t help when you regularly face a wall of steel against your regular foes
It’s why when giving list building advice in the days of AV, I always suggested that people think about how they are going to deal with heavy armor. Plasma spam, much like the AsC of 2nd edition, makes a LOT of problems just go away. But sometimes you want/need the specialized tool for the job. Especially against skew lists.
Normally I'd totally agree with that, however the situation in 2nd edition was a little different. The first part of it is that Vehicle armor in 2nd wasn't the same sort of "wall" because they had weaker points in the tracks and sponsons. That's unlike the Land Raider or Monolith situation in 3-7th where those Autocannons literally could not hurt them.
The other bit is the Assault Cannon itself. Out of curiosity I did some quick math using the Armor value of 22 (the Hull Armor of both the Leman Russ and the Land Raider). A Lascannon has 56 results out of the 216 total possibilities (3D6+9) to penetrate Armor 22, which translates to .259, or about 26% of the time. The Assault Cannon has 6 results out of 60 potential results (D6+D10+8), which is .1, or 10%. Sure doesn't look very good for the AC! BUT, the Assault Cannon also averages 4.5 shots. This bumps the average chance of penetrating up to 45%. Of course the Dreadnought brings a Twin Lascannon with it, so we multiply the Lascannons 26% by 2, and we get 52%. So you have this "generalist" Assault Cannon at 45%, and the "specialist" Twin Lascannon at 52%. They're really not very far off from each other, with only a 7% difference between them for the "specialization" and price increase of 10 points for the Lascannon.
If we look at the Assault Cannon in the other direction, and compare it against the Twin Heavy Bolters option, we see the anti-infantry side. Firing at Space Marines, the Twin linked Heavy Bolter gets (6 shots on average, X 3+ to wound, X 5+ to save) for 2.6 killed Space Marines, (or Renegade Marines, if you prefer). The Assault Cannon scores (4.5 average shots, 2+ to wound, 6+ to save) for 3.1 killed Marines. Against MEQ at least, the Assault Cannon outperforms the "specialist" Heavy Bolters.
So you have this "generalist" weapon which is comparable to, and in some cases better than, the "specialist" weapons in both directions. Was that problematic? Maybe. I think the designers were looking at range pretty heavily for balancing purposes. The Lascannon was 60", the Heavy Bolters 40", the Assault Cannon 32". Although personally the 32" never felt particularly short ranged to me, as there was supposed to be a lot of terrain on the table, and you could only shoot the closest targets available anyways. The Assault Cannon covered this huge range of effectiveness against a variety of targets, making it an immensely valuable weapon if you didn't know what you were going to be fighting against.
On the non-mathy side of things, rolling those Sustained Fire Dice for the AC was just a total thrill! So there's that too
That's one of the things I didn't like. Marines died at basically the same rate to lasguns and bolter fire.
There was no difference between 2nd and 3rd for the ratio of kills between Lasguns and Bolters vs. Marines. In 2nd ed, both Lasguns and Bolters had AP -1. In 3rd+, both had AP - against Marines. The only difference between the weapons in both cases was their Strength.
The AV and AP system of 3rd-7th never sat right with me.
Pretty much any choice between AP4 and AP3? You went with AP3. And you’d typically field a Lascannon over a Missile Launcher, because otherwise you could only plink away at AV14. But get that extra point of S in play, and not only could you now penetrate and wreck it in a single shot, but you still doubled your chance of doing anything at all.
This lead to fairly cookie cutter lists emerging, and as a result games feeling a bit samey.
Let’s consider the Heavy Bolter. In 3rd-7th, if memory serves….36” Range, S5, AP4, Heavy 3.
In 2nd Ed? 36” Range (would need to check), S5, Dam D4, AP -2, 2 Sustained Fire Dice.
Now against all but the lightest of vehicles both profiles were a bit crap for anti-armour. But in 2nd Ed, it was a pretty efficient piece of kit for knocking holes in most infantry and middle sized gribblies (like Tyranid Warriors). It can even take down characters from a single failed save, thanks to D4 Damage.
In the dark times? What. A. Wretched. Gun. Didn’t really bother MEQ. It lacked the rate of fire to really bother Horde Units (Boyz and Bugs). It was pretty useful against certain Aspect Squads though, as they typically came in small enough squads to offset that drawback.
Yeah. . . I don't think I fielded a Heavy Bolter on a Space Marine even once from 3rd through 7th. The opportunity cost for giving up the Heavy Weapon slot of something more valuable was just too high. Any Heavy Bolters in my armies showed up as Secondary Weapons on Vehicles because there was limited choice.
Some elements feel reasonable in 8th onwards-like Melta being so powerful that it would roast you even through cover. But overall, the results of the 3rd-7th AP and cover system felt better.
Rose tinted glasses always appear when it comes to the old AP system, where an Autocannon had more a chance to kill a Rhino in one shot and simply bounce off a Marine.
That is mathematically untrue. And to be fair to the abstraction, a Rhino should be much easier to hit than a Marine.
Insectum7 wrote: BUT, the Assault Cannon also averages 4.5 shots.
How do you incorporate jams into that calculation?
It's a zero. The average roll calculation for a Sustained fire dice is (0+1+1+2+2+3) /6 = 1.5. So 3 dice is 4.5.
There was no difference between 2nd and 3rd for the ratio of kills between Lasguns and Bolters vs. Marines.
Not true. Lasguns had a 16% chance to kill Marines in 2nd, while bolters had a 25% chance.
In 3rd it went to 11% and 16% respectively. Bolters basically became flashlights. They seemed closer because they were closer.
Ehhh, the ratio is still about 2/3 between the two. 16 (.65)being about 2/3 of 25, and 11 being about 2/3 of 16.
The major differences in the GEQ vs. MEQ shootout were elsewhere. When cover was a modifier it hurt GEQ shooting more, and in 2nd, GEQ weren't rapid-firing.
Insectum7 wrote: And to be fair to the abstraction, a Rhino should be much easier to hit than a Marine.
It should but thanks to sloped thick armor, the bullet should have a big chance to just glance off harmlessly. Or penetrate then just hit nothing important on the way out. Which is why the vehicle rules in 3-7 were so crap, they had equivalent of toughness but no corresponding armor save making vehicle armor virtually toilet paper (and the rare vehicle with ++ save so much better than the rest it wasn't even funny).
The fact ork leather vest provided better protection than tons upon tons of hardened plating was not only beyond idiotic, it also made walkers garbage in comparison with virtually identical monstrous creatures (and made eldar then later tau walkers broken because they used MC rules for no reason other than pet army buff, meaning not only mountain of USRs, but also armor save, and crucially T8 rendering them downright immune to tons of weapons in the game)...
Insectum7 wrote: And to be fair to the abstraction, a Rhino should be much easier to hit than a Marine.
It should but thanks to sloped thick armor, the bullet should have a big chance to just glance off harmlessly. Or penetrate then just hit nothing important on the way out.
Given all the rounded surfaces on Space Marine armor, a substantial amount of a Marine's sihlouette is sloped in relation to incoming rounds.
Which is why the vehicle rules in 3-7 were so crap, they had equivalent of toughness but no corresponding armor save making vehicle armor virtually toilet paper
Many of the high strength weapons aimed at MCs ignored the armor because of their AP. A Lascannon hitting a Wraithlord gave the Wraithlord no Save, and wounded on a 3+. The same Lascannon hitting a Land Raider "wounded" on a 5+.
[On MCs] . . .crucially T8 rendering them downright immune to tons of weapons in the game)...
T8 was immune to S4. AV 11 was immune to S4. AV 14 was immune to S 7. Armor values were "immune" to more weapons in the game.
The fact ork leather vest provided better protection than tons upon tons of hardened plating was not only beyond idiotic, it also made walkers garbage in comparison with virtually identical monstrous creatures
What weapons are you even talking about here? Most high strength weapons had an AP that would defeat "ork leather vest" 6+.
(and the rare vehicle with ++ save so much better than the rest it wasn't even funny).
. . .
(and made eldar then later tau walkers broken because they used MC rules for no reason other than pet army buff, meaning not only mountain of USRs, but also armor save, and . . .
GW f****d up the later editions with their MC power creep in particular. I wont argue with that. The more restrained era of editions 3-4 were much better in that regard.
I get why people disliked MCs vs. Vehicles in 3-7, but the points you're trying to make are wierd.
Insectum7 wrote: It's a zero. The average roll calculation for a Sustained fire dice is (0+1+1+2+2+3) /6 = 1.5. So 3 dice is 4.5.
It's not a zero. A zero just means you get nothing. A jam costs a turn to clear.
More dice mean more chance of a jam. You go from 16.67% on one die to 30% on two and 42% on three. You can shift that down a pip if the thing's on a dreadnought, but it's not an insignificant liability. There's also a growing possibility have losing an additional turn (or two!).
If rolling 3 dice, you should expect to miss every third turn of shooting. On a dread, you could stretch that to the fourth turn.
Once jammed, your opponent now gains greater freedom of movement, something not possible with a lascannon which can always be available.
Again, I like assault cannons, but you're not giving the full picture of their liabilities. I actually like that they have a downside.
Ehhh, the ratio is still about 2/3 between the two.
That's too clever by half.
Dropping bolters from 1:4 to 1:6 was huge, and arguing that a hit range of 11 vs 16% is "the same ratio" as 16 to 25% is quite at stretch.
When you're slicing percentages to a probability of less than one pip on a die, that's a problem.
Insectum7 wrote: It's a zero. The average roll calculation for a Sustained fire dice is (0+1+1+2+2+3) /6 = 1.5. So 3 dice is 4.5.
It's not a zero. A zero just means you get nothing. A jam costs a turn to clear.
More dice mean more chance of a jam. You go from 16.67% on one die to 30% on two and 42% on three. You can shift that down a pip if the thing's on a dreadnought, but it's not an insignificant liability. There's also a growing possibility have losing an additional turn (or two!).
If rolling 3 dice, you should expect to miss every third turn of shooting. On a dread, you could stretch that to the fourth turn.
Once jammed, your opponent now gains greater freedom of movement, something not possible with a lascannon which can always be available.
Again, I like assault cannons, but you're not giving the full picture of their liabilities. I actually like that they have a downside.
It's a zero for calculating the average return on a single round of firing. Sure, it could Jam. But it was so effective it was totally worth it, imo. Also, if it could Jam that's all the more reason to spam them for redundancy! I'm not even joking either. My recollection is that my Terminators and my Dreadnought were always partnered up and covering each other with their respective Assault Cannons. A Jam could happen, but my backup firepower was baked into the combo, and if things got sticky I could blow the Blind Grenades with the Auto Launchers. And being that they were using Assault Cannons, the unit combo was good against virtually anything.
As for "freedom of movement", if we're talking about infantry they're pretty free to move as the Lascannon can only kill one of them. The Assault Cannon inspired worry in opposition movement regardless of the unit type. It worked a little bit like Ordinance in 3rd+ that way. It was often not amazing, but sometimes it's really effective, and the idea that the Sustained Fire Dice might came up with a 7 8 or 9 hits was always looming.
Ehhh, the ratio is still about 2/3 between the two.
That's too clever by half.
Dropping bolters from 1:4 to 1:6 was huge, and arguing that a hit range of 11 vs 16% is "the same ratio" as 16 to 25% is quite at stretch.
When you're slicing percentages to a probability of less than one pip on a die, that's a problem.
Our calculator decibels and rounding errors got the better of us. It's exactly 2/3, or rather, in both editions the Bolter is better than the Lasgun against Marines by exactly a half. The only difference in calculation between the two weapons against Marines is that one wounded on 4s, and one wounded on 5s. It's exactly one pip on one of the rolls in both cases.
Notably, the same wasn't true in return. The new AP system gave Guardsmen no save against Bolters, while they suddenly got a save against Lasguns. In the GEQ vs. MEG gun-stat-to-armor comparison, Marines got tougher (saving on 3+ instead of 4+), and their guns got comparatively better since Guardsmen now saved 1/3rd of incoming Lasgun shots.
Insectum7 wrote: As for "freedom of movement", if we're talking about infantry they're pretty free to move as the Lascannon can only kill one of them.
We're not talking about infantry, we're talking about tanks and why the lascannon was often a better choice.
If there's a jam and you pop smoke, my tracks get a free move in the area they used to cover and that could mean a lot depending on the objective.
Again, I like 'em, but there were sound reasons to take other weapons instead.
Oh I'm talking enemy formations overall, and why the multipurpose role of the Assault Cannon is so useful. Especially in 2nd ed the opportunity cost for weapon choice is pretty high, as armies are smaller, being able to do both AT work and anti-infantry work (while featuring a lower Jam chance than the Twin Heavy bolters at the same time) made it a no brainer for me.
And that opportunity cost was a big deal, especially when compared against the two "specialist" of the Heavy weapons armory. The Twin Heavy Bolters is ostensibly the specialist against infantry, and the Twin Lascannon the specialist against armor (or monsters, etc.). So you'd think that a good thing to do would be (if you had two slots to fill), take one Twin Lascannon and one Twin Heavy Bolters, that way you cover all your bases. But because the Assault Cannon is comparable at both of those roles, I just take Assault Cannons because the weapon gives redundancy in both directions. If I go with Twin-Las and twin HBs and I lose the Lascannons, I'm up s*** creek against vehicles, and if I lose the THBs the Infantry can overrun me. With double ACannon, lose one and I still have an answer to both potential problems. Plus, prior to potential losses, it brings the additional capability of doubling up effective fire on a target if it's the primary threat. Two Assault Cannons are definitely better at killing a tank than one TLLC, and two Assault Cannons are definitely better at removing infantry than a single TLHB. So when suddenly faced with a severe threat, I can just double up against it.
It's probably the main reason why the AC was potentially "too good".
Also worth keeping in mind the range of things Assault Cannons were good against was far smaller than the things it was really good against.
Typically it came on a Very Accurate Chassis. So its relative bucket of shots rarely went completely wide.
Infantry squads rarely, if ever (really can’t remember) came in numbers higher than 10. So 3 Sustained Fire dice of solid firepower could put real dents in them.
Heavy/Elite stuff had reason to fear, due to its respectable Damage stat.
Even the otherwise terrifying Carnifex had caused for concern, as any failed save hurt
Even big tanks had to exercise caution. Sure the AC barely bothered hulls and turrets. Their AV was just too high. But your tracks and weapons? That it could get though. They’re then just a single Hull flash result from wrecking it.
Single characters caught out on their own would usually be in deep, deep trouble. Even with layered saves.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also worth keeping in mind the range of things Assault Cannons were good against was far smaller than the things it was really good against.
Typically it came on a Very Accurate Chassis. So its relative bucket of shots rarely went completely wide.
Infantry squads rarely, if ever (really can’t remember) came in numbers higher than 10. So 3 Sustained Fire dice of solid firepower could put real dents in them.
Orks and Nids could have big infantry squads. Same with Chaos cultists. Most topped out at 10 or less.
It really depends on how you play. My gaming these days is by appointment only, so there is no such thing as an "all-comers" list. We typically do battles as part of a narrative campaign, so force composition is discussed beforehand and it's expected that the armies are optimized against each other.
When 2nd was current, the A/C dread was the default choice for good reason. Because one of my opponents was a tread head, I got the lascannon/missile one for extra anti-armor capability. I didn't branch into the heavy bolter or plasma cannon until 3rd wrecked the A/C. I have found that they do have battlefield value, however. Against Tyranids in particular those heavy bolters are amazing.
That being said, Rapid Fire bolters usually have more than enough dakka to take out opposing infantry and I typically save the dreadnought for "heavies," be they monsters or tanks.
