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.

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 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.

 Haighus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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.

An incredible weapon.

Rose Tinted Wonky Memory Check.

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.

Well, there was always Virus Outbreak against certain opponents...

Only if you didn’t bin the card as ordered 🤣🤣

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!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rose Tinted Wonky Memory Check.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Only if you didn’t bin the card as ordered 🤣🤣

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

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.

That edition drove me out of 40k.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

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.

Wasn’t a fan of how cover worked either.

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!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


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

Breton wrote:

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoiler:

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

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?

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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 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.