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

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The core system is pretty similar 3rd-7th. There are tweaks (largely with Vehicles) but the bones are the same.

I will 100% agree there were Codex issues aplenty-but that's different from the core rules.

thank you.

 Hellebore wrote:
That implies that anything that wasn't a space marine could play effectively in that game...

Just because eldar could take broken wraithknights didn't make the army effective. Trying playing anything with T3 and 5+sv and tell me that those models were effective at all.

The latter 6th and 7th editions required that a faction only play the most broken combo because everything else was useless. That's not a good system.

Again, this is a codex problem, and part of the reason why people at the time gravitated to HH1, and played HH1 for 10 years until HH2 came out. When HH1 fully split off into it's own system of 7th ed+, they removed the largest cause of codex imbalance at the time; formations.

I have played against plenty of opponents back then that made guard work, and if you tell me eldar had weak toughness cause they largely didnt get saves outside of wraiths i'm going to fully think you're trolling.
.

Again, it's not a codex problem it's a core rules problem that required broken codex solutions to work around them. Like the core 'instant death' rule - the only way around that was to create eternal warrior exceptions that negated the value of that core mechanic. If you're having to create work arounds of the core mechanic, it's that rule that needs changing. The codexes will then fall back into line when they don't have to work against such restrictions.

As for eldar 'toughness', you will not find a single instance of that coming from their native T3 Sv5+ profile, all sorts of various vehicle or psychic shennigans are required to give them that.

So again, until the AP system allows a T3 5+ save model to actually function without all sorts of work arounds, it's a broken system. A t4 3+sv model can function in the game without needing any work arounds. All models should be able to do that. a 5+ save is already a liability, it doesn't need to be ignored by 95% of the weapons in the game for that liability to work.

 Hellebore wrote:

Again, it's not a codex problem it's a core rules problem that required broken codex solutions to work around them. Like the core 'instant death' rule - the only way around that was to create eternal warrior exceptions that negated the value of that core mechanic. If you're having to create work arounds of the core mechanic, it's that rule that needs changing. The codexes will then fall back into line when they don't have to work against such restrictions.

Alright, so change two of the biggest rules when it comes to wounding models, AP and Doubling out toughness and then you would think it would fix 3rd-7th. Like what 8th-10th did.

nah, those two rules don't need changing at all for 3rd-7th man. It honestly just sounds like these editions are just not your cup of tea. That's fine, but I fail to see how these games would remain what people liked.

For the record, the way around the AP system when in the shooting phase is to use cover to get more saves and LOS blocking terrain, use transports or to try and avoid weapons that ignored cover. Target priority also allowed you to avoid such weapons that make that even harder like targeting flamers for elimination. Its easier said than done, but it requires skill and tactics to do so, and several armies were able to do that besides marines.

Instant death scenarios are countered by having mooks to put wounds on to in the same squad as your heroes. for multi-wound squads, high strength weapons were a counter that you had to avoid, or eliminate through target priority. It's as much as a reward for the opponent being able to bring weapons to bear against high value, multi-wound targets, and caused a threat that was a counter to your models so they wouldn't be a damage sponge compared to the majority 1 wound armies on the table.

So again, until the AP system allows a T3 5+ save model to actually function without all sorts of work arounds, it's a broken system. A t4 3+sv model can function in the game without needing any work arounds. All models should be able to do that. a 5+ save is already a liability, it doesn't need to be ignored by 95% of the weapons in the game for that liability to work.

Alright, so you really want a game where an eldar guardian is as survivable as a space marine all the time, without any penalty? like, every model thats T3 with a 5+ save, no matter how many of them there are?

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

So again, until the AP system allows a T3 5+ save model to actually function without all sorts of work arounds, it's a broken system. A t4 3+sv model can function in the game without needing any work arounds. All models should be able to do that. a 5+ save is already a liability, it doesn't need to be ignored by 95% of the weapons in the game for that liability to work.

Alright, so you really want a game where an eldar guardian is as survivable as a space marine all the time, without any penalty? like, every model thats T3 with a 5+ save, no matter how many of them there are?

That's not what Hellebore said at all, but I do feel like you're both being a bit hyperbolic.

Realistically, you were usually either putting your guardians in cover for a cover save in pre-8th editions, or else you were having a warlock Conceal them. Their durability was pretty crummy even with cover (against non-flamer shooting), but durability also wasn't the reason guardians were bad. You could have made their minimum squad size 5 and let them take a heavy weapon platform at that size and they'd have been fine.

But all that said, being T3 with a 5+ save was brutal in the old AP system. If basic rifles for most armies were Ap6 or AP- it would have been *okay* (not great, but okay), but having a 5+ save basically meant you didn't have a save at all in an edition where most armies' basic guns are AP5. So when you're essentially as squishy as a guardsman but not priced like one, you definitely feel it.

That said, guardians were kind of an outlier. Most eldar non-vehicles were Sv4+ or Sv3+. It still sucked to watch a heavy flamer wound your "elite" infantry on 2s and ignore their saves entirely, but at least you had a little protection against bolters. Still sucked though. I much prefer the current AP system where it feels like both my own armor stat and my opponent's AP stat are factoring into the conversation rather than one being completely negated by the other.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

So again, until the AP system allows a T3 5+ save model to actually function without all sorts of work arounds, it's a broken system. A t4 3+sv model can function in the game without needing any work arounds. All models should be able to do that. a 5+ save is already a liability, it doesn't need to be ignored by 95% of the weapons in the game for that liability to work.

Alright, so you really want a game where an eldar guardian is as survivable as a space marine all the time, without any penalty? like, every model thats T3 with a 5+ save, no matter how many of them there are?

That's not what Hellebore said at all, but I do feel like you're both being a bit hyperbolic.

Realistically, you were usually either putting your guardians in cover for a cover save in pre-8th editions, or else you were having a warlock Conceal them. Their durability was pretty crummy even with cover (against non-flamer shooting), but durability also wasn't the reason guardians were bad. You could have made their minimum squad size 5 and let them take a heavy weapon platform at that size and they'd have been fine.

But all that said, being T3 with a 5+ save was brutal in the old AP system. If basic rifles for most armies were Ap6 or AP- it would have been *okay* (not great, but okay), but having a 5+ save basically meant you didn't have a save at all in an edition where most armies' basic guns are AP5. So when you're essentially as squishy as a guardsman but not priced like one, you definitely feel it.

That said, guardians were kind of an outlier. Most eldar non-vehicles were Sv4+ or Sv3+. It still sucked to watch a heavy flamer wound your "elite" infantry on 2s and ignore their saves entirely, but at least you had a little protection against bolters. Still sucked though. I much prefer the current AP system where it feels like both my own armor stat and my opponent's AP stat are factoring into the conversation rather than one being completely negated by the other.

I was just legitimately confused, and needed to clarify tbh, but I get your point

And fair enough I suppose. I personally (if it wasn’t obvious) am a midhammer AP enjoyer, and I take the good with the bad. I lost enough skitarii to feel that pain.

And to each their own in terms of enjoyment, I just personally don’t like the subtractive AP cause it feels like the base save never matters. Every gun seems to be at least -1 to armor saves in the games I played with it

Remember they don't actually "die" to the las pistol, they are just temporarily combat ineffective/wounded for that battle. getting smoked by a battle cannon shell or a las cannon.....well good chance they are dead from that one.

The AP system from 3-7th is probably the main reason I wouldn't want to go back to those rules, right next to the Close combat Resolution which just lacked any player interaction at all. Units got stuck in CC and compared tables for a couple of rounds until one side was dead and it took them until 7th edition to at least make up the "our guns are useless"-rule for anyone who couldn't punch up tanks with their bare fists (so anyone S3, funnily enough for everyone who likes to argue about guardsmen being able to hurt tanks in 8th+).
5+ and 6+ saves only ever came up in Close combat and even then they still were useless because of the number of attacks or the pretty rough wounding table.
Initiative meant that you had to put no less than 29 boyz around your nob and hope for him to be the lonely Survivor because of I2 so he gets a chance to swing his klaw.
I'm not convinced the main flaw of these editions lay in the Codizes. Balance, yes, but that could have been fixed with the update system we have since 8th.
But I'm looking at my CSM Codex from 3.5 or 4th edition Ork codex, or even the library of stuff I had to bring to pull CSM in 7th on a playable Level (Codex+ Crimson Slaughter Expansion + Helbrute Dataslate+ Traitor's Hate ) and there was a lot of fun stuff in there that didn't really translate to the table because of the deep flaws of the basic rules - IGOUGO, CC, AP system, from 6th on also totally useless tank rules etc.
With 10th it's the other way around - very solid base rules but the Codizes aren't as much fun, too much is tied to stratagems, the missions are shallow, the unit special rules are repetitive and mostly "kill betterer".

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The AP system from 3-7th is probably the main reason I wouldn't want to go back to those rules, right next to the Close combat Resolution which just lacked any player interaction at all.

Yes. As noted, AP is inherently unbalanced because it is all or nothing. Cover was also neutered, being ineffective 2/3 of the time and of course it didn't stack with armor.

The stated intent was to move combat out into the open, and make assaults more common, and in this the system was wildly successful.

However, I think it was another case of "careful what you wish for."

Yes. As noted, AP is inherently unbalanced because it is all or nothing.

Abstract representation of warfare.....

As it should be. hell in some games i play you don't get a save because there is no such thing as body armor, you get hit, you get panicked, your fine or your dead.

Cover was also neutered, being ineffective 2/3 of the time and of course it didn't stack with armor.

In our games it would only be neutered if you didn't put any on the table, we consistently use LOS blocking terrain and the majority of cover (hills, ruins wrecks, rocks etc..) tends to be 4+, with a smattering of trees(5+) or fortifications (3+).

Hard cover is a thing unless you are facing flamers and marker lights or those occasional weapons that can ignore it. but most of those have very poor AP. mostly designed to kill orks/guardsman

That's a funny argument in a game in which Space Marines are a thing, who with the combination of 3+ armor and ATSKNF they get hit, don't panic and most of the time are fine (well at least until AP2-3 pie plates started becoming standard).

I wonder if the AP system would have worked better if Marines were 4+ armor and the game was designed around that.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Tiger9gamer wrote:

So again, until the AP system allows a T3 5+ save model to actually function without all sorts of work arounds, it's a broken system. A t4 3+sv model can function in the game without needing any work arounds. All models should be able to do that. a 5+ save is already a liability, it doesn't need to be ignored by 95% of the weapons in the game for that liability to work.

Alright, so you really want a game where an eldar guardian is as survivable as a space marine all the time, without any penalty? like, every model thats T3 with a 5+ save, no matter how many of them there are?

That's not what Hellebore said at all, but I do feel like you're both being a bit hyperbolic.

Realistically, you were usually either putting your guardians in cover for a cover save in pre-8th editions, or else you were having a warlock Conceal them. Their durability was pretty crummy even with cover (against non-flamer shooting), but durability also wasn't the reason guardians were bad. You could have made their minimum squad size 5 and let them take a heavy weapon platform at that size and they'd have been fine.

But all that said, being T3 with a 5+ save was brutal in the old AP system. If basic rifles for most armies were Ap6 or AP- it would have been *okay* (not great, but okay), but having a 5+ save basically meant you didn't have a save at all in an edition where most armies' basic guns are AP5. So when you're essentially as squishy as a guardsman but not priced like one, you definitely feel it.

That said, guardians were kind of an outlier. Most eldar non-vehicles were Sv4+ or Sv3+. It still sucked to watch a heavy flamer wound your "elite" infantry on 2s and ignore their saves entirely, but at least you had a little protection against bolters. Still sucked though. I much prefer the current AP system where it feels like both my own armor stat and my opponent's AP stat are factoring into the conversation rather than one being completely negated by the other.

Unfortunately it was the one two combo of bolters and heavy bolters that was the problem. Only 3+ saves available, removing any model that's not a marine on a 2+ or a 3+ if an ork with heavy bolters.


I would argue I'm not being hyperbolic - the game required a lot of additional rules or exceptions to enable a unit with the T3 5+sv profile to function at all. About the only game method that had success was making them so cheap you couldn't kill enough of them. That was the only way guardsmen could work. And then it was just easier to not deploy normal guardsmen if you could avoid it.

Most of the 'effective' army lists for non marine armies revolved around avoiding those units. The windriders were effective when they were rereleased because they were T4 3+sv and carried longer range weapons. Storm troopers were used in preference of normal guard, or everyone took the 4+ save doctrine to avoid having useless units.

And it was trivially easy for virtually all armies to get a heavy bolter profile in large quantities, which removed your 4+saves as well.

The game was objectively slanted towards preserving 3+ saves over any other. And when 3+ saves are also the most popular army, it skews the game massively. So people then start not only trying to avoid their core units because the game is built against them, but also trying to find any way they can to stack specifically anti marine weapons.

And so marines started to feel a small portion of what every other army felt every game - encountering an enemy that just removes you when they wound you. But no one could optimise their weapons against marines the same way ANY army could optimise against anything NOT marine. It was a wholly unbalanced ecosystem.

Yes marines are the flagship army and GW sells to that point but as players in the 3rd-7th ed era there is a reason why the term MEQ was a thing. no matter what army you played you always were prepared to fight against marine equivalent armies rather they were actually marines or some other force like sisters that had a 3+ save.

The fact a host of armies in the game only had majority access to a 4+ or 5+ save didn't make them any less capable. remember i still play guard and tyranids and a large selection of my admech are all in the same area.

Additionally a decent counter to not having access to large amounts of AP3 was simple volume of fire/attacks, I've lost more terminators to las guns than i have to any volume of AP1/2 weapons fire.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The AP system from 3-7th is probably the main reason I wouldn't want to go back to those rules, right next to the Close combat Resolution which just lacked any player interaction at all. Units got stuck in CC and compared tables for a couple of rounds until one side was dead and it took them until 7th edition to at least make up the "our guns are useless"-rule for anyone who couldn't punch up tanks with their bare fists (so anyone S3, funnily enough for everyone who likes to argue about guardsmen being able to hurt tanks in 8th+).

There was a "voluntary fall back" optional rule in 3rd edition, if combat looked like you were going to have zero chance to win or no reasonable chance to win, you could choose to automatically fall back. Like having a squad with no S6 or higher stuck in combat against an av12 dreadnought.

 aphyon wrote:

Yes. As noted, AP is inherently unbalanced because it is all or nothing.

Abstract representation of warfare.....

As it should be. hell in some games i play you don't get a save because there is no such thing as body armor, you get hit, you get panicked, your fine or your dead.

It's a poor representation because it is difficult to quantify "all or nothing" in a point-based system. If you move in increments, it becomes easier because you can match modifiers with saves and determine the true worth. But with AP, that's very difficult to do.

This is a very old discussion, and goes back to how you weight a S4 AP3 weapon. Against 90% of troop types, it confers no advantage over a boltgun, but the game skews into 3+ save troops, so you have to make it pricey even though it really isn't all that capable most of the time.

One also runs into the problem that GW began adding absurd amounts of dice to overcome it, and people could (and did) keep running tallies of exactly how many shots with various weapons you need to punch through it, which makes for a pretty silly and time-consuming game experience.

But it was great for Chessex, who made bank selling every new player a block of 36 dice. Ork Speed Freeks needed two of them.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

This is a very old discussion, and goes back to how you weight a S4 AP3 weapon. Against 90% of troop types, it confers no advantage over a boltgun, but the game skews into 3+ save troops, so you have to make it pricey even though it really isn't all that capable most of the time.

That's true for any niche weapon/equipment though, and should be fine for any wargame looking to involve a bit of charachter/flavor.

slade the sniper wrote:
I'm pretty sure this has been before, but what is your preferred version of 40k and related games? You don't have to justify your answers at all...

My preferred version of 40k is 7th.. it had the widest variety of options for psykers, vehicles and troop selection.

My preferred skirmish game is... Shadow War Armageddon.

-STS

It hasn't been released yet. I'd like to pick and pull stuff from multiple editions and create the new mashup ultimate edition. Give me psychology from 2nd edition. Probably psychics from 2nd Edition's Dark Millenium set. Maybe bring back Armor Value, but more likely Double down on the S/T changes so the tanks are like T20, and the Lascannon is S20 but hits infantry etc on a 6+ Or worse if they bring back rolling more than a 6 so that Heavy Bolt Rifles have to roll a 6, another 6, another 6 and yet another 6 before they roll their final 6 in a row to wound the T20 tanks. and then bring back initiative, and the make the roll to hit in shooting as oppositional vs Initiative like WS vs WS used to be. Instead of giving everybody and their sister an invuln, now you've got BS 4 Marines needing a 6 to hit the I8 Harlequinn Jester. There are at least three rolls in every attack. Use them all to create variety in the strengths and weaknesses.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

This is a very old discussion, and goes back to how you weight a S4 AP3 weapon. Against 90% of troop types, it confers no advantage over a boltgun, but the game skews into 3+ save troops, so you have to make it pricey even though it really isn't all that capable most of the time.

I would say an even "better" discussion is how you price an AP4 weapon? If they are pricey then they end being crap most of the time. If they are cheap then they end being overpowered against everyone that isn't a Space Marine.

And thus a similar issue is how you price a 4+ armour save?

It is that middle of the road value that IMHO really shows all the issues with the AP system within the context of 40k.

 Tyran wrote:


I would say an even "better" discussion is how you price an AP4 weapon? If they are pricey then they end being crap most of the time. If they are cheap then they end being overpowered against everyone that isn't a Space Marine.

And thus a similar issue is how you price a 4+ armour save?

It is that middle of the road value that IMHO really shows all the issues with the AP system within the context of 40k.

It is a topic that raged for years, and I recall lots of math showing how difficult it was to quantify because of the skew within the system.

Your example is a good one. Another that used to come up, was how save modifiers actually leveled the playing field, avoiding this skew. The ubiquitous heavy bolter was S5 and -2 save mod, meaning even power armor was vulnerable. Now it was still better than the poor slobs wearing flak or mesh armor, because a 5+ save is better than nothing. Indeed, just the other night I hit three marines with a heavy bolter and all three made their saves.

What AP did was make everything niche, without any real "all comers" options. That put even more emphasis on listhammer, and gameplay suffered as a result. I don't know how many times I heard "well, try that in a tournament" being used as a defense, as if some possible future loss made up for the lop-sided contest here and now.

Because of that problem I saw the first heavy bolters in 8th edition when they could actually kill stuff.
Before that? Autocannon was probably one of the few all comers weapons (and always better than a heavy bolter), it could hurt anything and was reasonably cheap and its weak AP4 wasn't that much of a problem because at least you hit infantry on a 2+ and could even threaten vehicles. Similar to the ubiquitous plasma gun that only fell out of favour in 7th because loyalists got the grav gun that was even more all comers (or, well, the things it wasn't good against were the only things your bolters were good against).

I have nothing to add but it is fun to see this ripe old ground being retread by people smarter than me and in a civilised fashion

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

What AP did was make everything niche, without any real "all comers" options. That put even more emphasis on listhammer, and gameplay suffered as a result.

Or to say it another way, AP created greater degrees of differentiation between weapons and models, providing more variety and more sophisticated cost-benefit shot choice analysis using a single D6.

Also as noted there were still "all comers" weapons in high strength, high AP weapons. Starcannons, the upgraded Assault Cannons of 4th, Ordinance weapons, Plasma, etc.

Both systems have their merits. Both have their faults. Imo compared to AP the save mod system feels "mushy", especially in the current implementation. The more weapons are capable against everything the less difficult the choices become, and the less important maneuvering is.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

What AP did was make everything niche, without any real "all comers" options. That put even more emphasis on listhammer, and gameplay suffered as a result.

Or to say it another way, AP created greater degrees of differentiation between weapons and models,

Which bring us to what IMHO actually breaks the AP system: the way 40k uses armour (and to lesser degree AP) as faction identifiers.

The AP system could be a good strong system if access to armor and AP was truly diverse instead of Space Marines being the most common faction of mostly 3+ and 2+ saves.
If the common "Space Marine" army list was a diverse mix of guardsmen, stormtroopers and/or Skitarri supported by a true but small core of Space Marine elites then the AP system would work amazingly.

But we don't have that and it is highly debatable we could ever have that.

Sorry. Skipped all of the arguments over the last few pages. 4th edition. Before the introduction of the "4th edition CSM codex". When 3.5 was legal.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both systems have their merits. Both have their faults. Imo compared to AP the save mod system feels "mushy", especially in the current implementation. The more weapons are capable against everything the less difficult the choices become, and the less important maneuvering is.

I guess I just prefer the "mush" over the listhammer approach. Having my opponent end up at -1 to their saves because I brought an AP-2 gun and shot at a unit in cover makes it feel like the points I spent on AP, the points my opponent spent on a good Sv, and the maneuvering decision my opponent made by putting their unit in cover are all factoring into the end result of how many models get removed by my attacks.

Whereas the old AP system was like, "You paid points for an AP4 weapon? That either does nothing at all or else auto-removes models on a 2+ depending on whether you're facing marines or not-marines in today's pickup game."

I can sort of see the appeal of having strong divisions between "classes" of weapons on paper, but I'm just not sure that approach really works out in the context of pickup games where you don't know what you'll be facing when you put your list together.

As for weapons that are "capable against everything," I feel like this falls into two camps:
A.) Weapons that are meant to be generalist and are less efficient than a specialized option but always decent. This is basically working as intended. You're probably incentivized to mix in a few meltas or lascannons to go with those plasma shots or a few anti-horde weapons just in case you run into a list with some tough nuts that you want to crack efficiently/quickly.
B.) Stuff that is not only a generalist option but also *so good* against *everything* that it kind of invalidates the more specialist options. In which case, the generalist option is overtuned compared to the specialist options and something ought to be changed.

So A is what we want to see and B is a problem that can be identified and tweaked with stat changes. Or (in a world where wargear costs points) price changes.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Whereas the old AP system was like, "You paid points for an AP4 weapon? That either does nothing at all or else auto-removes models on a 2+ depending on whether you're facing marines or not-marines in today's pickup game."

It worked a bit better when those AP4 weapons were also frequently S5 or higher, where you were paying for the AP against soft elite units but paying for the strength against tough heavily armoured units.
The low strength AP3 weapons were a bit weird in comparison as you were paying for a boltgun against a guardsman and a triple boltgun against a marine.

GW were never quite able to sync up their AP4 and 4+ save prices though, didn't help that there was a two edition lag on codex releases with almost no points updates inbetween. 4+ saves were most decidedly worth it when you weren't paying through the nose, and when GW wasn't handing it out on small arms (looking at you 5e crons...)


In terms of modifiers it similarly depends on how they are distributed. The party trick of 2e eldar for example was that all of those marines paying premium for their power armour were never going to see better than a 5+ save against your small arms. You rarely got to roll an actual 3+ save in 2e and non-marine armies were fishing for 6s more often than not - though perhaps my view of it is skewed by a great deal of necromunda back in the day where armour was most decidedly useless.

A.T. wrote:

In terms of modifiers it similarly depends on how they are distributed. The party trick of 2e eldar for example was that all of those marines paying premium for their power armour were never going to see better than a 5+ save against your small arms. You rarely got to roll an actual 3+ save in 2e and non-marine armies were fishing for 6s more often than not - though perhaps my view of it is skewed by a great deal of necromunda back in the day where armour was most decidedly useless.

I think it depends on your expectations for armor. Marines in 2nd had been boosted to T4, which was significant in and of itself, and combined with a 3+ base save, were difficult to kill with small arms. Add in to hit modifiers, and they were quite durable when in hard cover.

So yes, 5+ is not great, but it's better than no save at all, which was where just about everyone else was against Eldar.

What AP did was put the game in somewhat uncharted territory in terms of armor saves, and for the first time we saw Marines get the full 3+ against everything that didn't go clean through it. In 2nd, it was normal for small arms to have a -1 tacked on, so Marines mostly got 4+ saves, which was still great.

And when looking at the Eldar, they were in for some tough sledding themselves, since mesh armor was reduced to 6+ by bolters, and the heaviest Aspect Warrior stuff was likewise 4+ against them. The key difference was T3 boosted the quantity of saves that had to be made, hence the "glass cannon" reputation of the army.

In 3rd, Marines not only got 3+ against small arms, but even heavy bolters were much less effective. In fact, everything was less effective, because plasma and melta weapons already sliced through it in 2nd. Imperial Guard flashlights were already ice skating uphill, and now they were even more of a joke.

Eldar of course took it on the chin in a big way, which is why starcannon spam happened. You saw similar stuff with other armies because the AP system itself demanded it: if specialization is the key to winning, everyone is going to do it, and they're all forced to do it in the exact same way.

Without the all-or-nothing approach, you could be a bit more flexible, counting on quantity of cheaper weapons like heavy bolters to prevail because they were still decent Marine killers. That in turn enabled more "all comers" lists for pick-up games.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

In 3rd, Marines not only got 3+ against small arms, but even heavy bolters were much less effective. In fact, everything was less effective, because plasma and melta weapons already sliced through it in 2nd. Imperial Guard flashlights were already ice skating uphill, and now they were even more of a joke.

There's a lot wrong here. First, Plasma Guns was only a -2 in 2nd, whereas they were AP 2 in 3rd. That's a 5+ Marine save vs no save. Plasma became more effective. Melta was tha same vs Marines, but more effective against Terminators.

As for Guard, you're dismissing heaps of context. In 2nd, the cover adjustments to-hit meant that Guard missed more often with their Lasguns. Hitting on a flat 4+ granting a 3+ save becomes equal lethality to having a -1 to hit but knocking a point of armor off to a 4+. And it's an improvement in lethality compared to having a -2 to hit with 2nd eds Hard cover.

But also! Guardsmen Lasguns weren't limited to one shot anymore, picking up the ability to Rapid Fire for double the shots. Meanwhile Marines lost their extra shot at 24". Comparative lethality for Guardsmen against Marines at range saw a net improvement for Guardsmen, an effect reflected in their points adjustments at the time. Guardsmen went from 10 to 6 (iirc), and Marines from 30 to 15.

The balance and tactics changed. In 2nd, Marines could sit in Heavy Cover and Rapid Fire away at Guardsmen with a heavy advantage, as Guardsmen would fire back fishing for 6s to hit. In 3rd, Guardsmen in cover kept their armor save, saw fewer incoming shots, while being able to return fire more effectively. Marines were more incentivised to take the initiative, use their armor to cross the distance, and assault the Guardsmen to wipe them out in murderous close combat. This is why I will always have a soft spot for the AP system. Yes, on the initial impression there are some unintuitive interactions. But put in context, the battles often had more interesting incentives and outcomes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Both systems have their merits. Both have their faults. Imo compared to AP the save mod system feels "mushy", especially in the current implementation. The more weapons are capable against everything the less difficult the choices become, and the less important maneuvering is.

I guess I just prefer the "mush" over the listhammer approach. Having my opponent end up at -1 to their saves because I brought an AP-2 gun and shot at a unit in cover makes it feel like the points I spent on AP, the points my opponent spent on a good Sv, and the maneuvering decision my opponent made by putting their unit in cover are all factoring into the end result of how many models get removed by my attacks.

Whereas the old AP system was like, "You paid points for an AP4 weapon? That either does nothing at all or else auto-removes models on a 2+ depending on whether you're facing marines or not-marines in today's pickup game."

I totally understand the preference. It's more intuitive, and that's a strength. That said, tactics from army to army vary less. Stick to cover and trade shots becomes more the default. And while that's "realistic" in one sense, I find there's a different "realism" in making the smart move for Marines to ignore cover and advance as fast as possible to engage and wipe out in CC. It's more dramatic and more "shock troop-ey".

You overstate the HB. There were still plenty of AV 4+ or worse models with either multiple wounds or toughness greater than 3. Ork 'Ard Boyz, Tyranid Warriors, Ogryns, etc. Another important factor is that all of those 4+save models still got that full save against Bolter equivalents, which dramatically increased survivability.

I can sort of see the appeal of having strong divisions between "classes" of weapons on paper, but I'm just not sure that approach really works out in the context of pickup games where you don't know what you'll be facing when you put your list together.

Personally I thought it worked best in pick up games where you couldn't tailor your list, and had to try to find a balance of gear and tactical potential that allowed you to be flexible.

Compared to today, the listbuilding put more emphasis on gear and simple stats, whereas listbuilding today feels like the emphasis is more on finding combos of bespoke unit special rules. Blech.

The problem was that if you tailored to marines, you would still do fine against anything not a marine, because you would also be ignoring everyone else's saves as well.

Which is basically what happened from what I saw, as marines were the most common army so set the default meta, and the ap system meant you'd still be advantaged against non marines (for saves). Marines especially were notorious for tailoring against other marines with lasplas.

the Eldar got their overly effective star cannon which they tried to nerf but it's utility was too high even at 2 shots.

The kill count difference that was supposed to make heavy bolters and frag missiles a dilemma choice didn't really eventuate.

The advantage of ap2 tailoring was higher than the disadvantages when you fought non marines. There wasn't a big enough kill difference against guard, Tyranids or Orks because you could just use standard rifles or for marines melee to take them out.
Then of course there were the anti Marine blast weapons that negated that anyway.

The cost and or shots were just not enough of a difference. Maxing plasma cannons didn't reduce your army size due to cost enough while heavy bolters at 3 shots just weren't an effective alternative.

Which is where the all or nothing aspect makes it hard, it makes the cost benefit much more clear cut and the winners much more effective.

Edit: the army I was playing the most in 3rd/ 4th was space Wolves (I stopped playing spave wolves in 5th with the increased flanderisation of the faction). My all comers list had virtually nothing that was not anti Marine and it always did fine against non marines. I had:

14 blood claws with power weapons and powerfist and flamer in a land raider crusader led by wolf lord with plasma pistol and frost weapon and Rune priest
10 grey hunters with 2 pp and 1 plasma gun
10 grey hunters with 2 PW and 2 pp
6 grey hunters with 2 pp, 1 pw, 1 meltagun led by a wolf guard leader with a power weapon and combi melta in a razorback with twin heavy bolters
5 long fangs with 2 plasma cannons and 2 lascannons
Vindicator
2 attack bikers with heavy bolters
5 blood claws on bikes with power weapons

Or some combination thereof and maybe some other units depending on the game size.

At no point did I ever wish I had more anti chaff weapons whether I was fighting Orks or guard. The anti Marine weapons worked against everyone without issue.

Genuinely I think a portion of that is more of a meta thing than a balance thing. Regular opponents for me in 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition included a lot of Orks, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Nids and Tau, in addition to Marines and CSM. While I was never a big user of Heavy Bolters, Flamers were often my default Special weapon because of the number of models they could hit in close quarters, and the fact that they could be used when Assaulting. Heavy Bolters appeared on units like Land Speeders and Predators for various reasons, and the other major anti-horde unit I used regularly was the Whirlwind.

I think the other piece is; the thing about the "Heavy Bilter dilema" for arming units like Tactical Squads is, imo, less an issue with AP and more an issue of opportunity cost in missing out on some other weapon (like Lascannons) which isn't taken because it's good against Marines (because they were only marginally better), but because they were good at taking on high value and more threatening targets, like Greater Daemons, Tanks, Carnifexes, Terminators, etc. Anecdotally, even in the systems that used save modifiers that I played (2nd, 8th and 9th), I never took Heavy Bolters on Tacs or Devastators, because there was always some other weapon which was better at knocking out more threatening targets. To me that doesn't speak to an AP problem, that's seems more of a Heavy Bolter problem with those platforms. Heavy Bolters appeared elsewhere on platforms that had fewer choices.

Edit: Responding to list.
I'm gonna call you out on that LR Crusader for anti-chaff work!

I also think an aspect of this is that Marines themselves are good at anti-chaff. I certainly made that calculation at the time. But it might be telling to look at other armies. For example, Imperial Guard forces that I saw brought lots of HBs and Autocannons. CSM Havoc Squads brought Autocannons as well. Tau brought mixes of things, some plasma, but also Burst Cannons and their Missile things (AP4 I think). Necrons often leaned into Immortals and Destroyers with lots of AP 4, and many Necron Players skipped the Heavy Destroyers that rocked the AP2.

The crusader was almost entirely for it's transport capacity, if the normal land raider could carry 16 I'd have used it instead.

The attack bikers and razorback were all conversions from bits boxes I'd won at the local gw, because I couldn't afford everything. So the equipment was limited to what was in the bitz, which was all heavy bolters I think from the plastic land speeder. I'd have done the lasplas on the razorback otherwise.

One of my main opponents was a guard player and I found all this great against them. He deployed lots of lascannons, he tried auto cannons but their output wasn't high enough to be worth it, shifting to heavy bolters if he needed to. Autocannons were in a really weird position, low shots, mid ap, mid s. No one I encountered liked them they'd either go lascannons for AT, or heavy bolters for anti infantry and that was only because of the poor BS being offset by 50% more shots.

But then his main damage came from battle cannon blasts which were all perfect anti Marine weapons.

I see the ap issue in optimising ap2 the way previous editions optimised mortal wounds, you can avoid all the guess work in damage if you just concentrate on the weapons that hit the hardest.